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

The link is to my commentary on 1Co11.2-16. I've not seen any thoughts similar to some of these ever, by any other. Perhaps you'll enjoy reading it. Plz do constructively criticize it, replying here at AFF, quoting line numbers or using copy and paste.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...Y/edit?tab=t.0

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

It says I need access. You can convert it to pdf and upload here to the forum, then post a link here to the pdf attachment.

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

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

Is it too long to copy and paste here? Or add as an attachment as a PDF to the post?

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

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

For any who wants to read the file, the link Don provided in his original post is working now:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...t?usp=drivesdk

**

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

Don, if you still want to attach a PDF use these instructions

https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...b3_attachments

**

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

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

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

Can you explain what you meant when you said this:

"If any don't want to walk according to this, then don't make a big fuss over their refusal, because as a custom it is not a command. Neither the churches, nor we, teach this custom as a command for all to hold."

???

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

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

So, you understand Paul to be saying essentially "if any contend against what I have just taught, don't worry about it because neither we nor the churches of God command what I just taught"?

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

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

Ok, I just wanted to be clear about what you are saying.



Paul establishes that what is being discussed are the "traditions received" by the church from the apostles. He provides correction regarding the Corinthians' practice, to bring them into conformity with the apostolic traditions concerning head covering, the Lord's Supper, and the conduct of people during the meeting.

In regards to the head covering issue, he establishes as apostolic doctrine that every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonours his spiritual head, Christ. And that women praying or prophesying having their heads uncovered are doing something that is shameful and dishonourable.

He then establishes the reasons why the man should be uncovered and why the woman should be covered. Those reasons are:

1. The man is the image and glory of God, the woman is the glory of the man.
2. The man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man.
3. The man was not made for the woman, but the woman was made for the man.
4. The woman ought to be covered because of the angels.

None of those reasons are cultural, or "instinctual", but are based entirely upon the hierarchical order of creation and God's government.

In addition to these stated reasons, he tells the Corinthians they can figure this out for themselves by simply looking to "nature". According to "nature", long flowing hair on a man is a shame, but it is a glory to a woman, illustrating the the concept of man = uncovered, woman = covered, which verifies or witnesses to the truth of his apostolic teaching.

He concludes by saying:

1 Corinthians 11:16 KJV
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Who would be contentious? About what would they be contentious? To be contentious means to argue against or oppose something, to "contend" or fight against something. So who would be contentious, and against what are they contending? The obvious answer is "the people who oppose Paul's teaching, and they are contending against his teaching". That is, the contentious ones are contending against the doctrine that men are to pray and prophesy with uncovered head and women are to pray and prophesy with covered head.

In response to the contentious ones, he says "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." What custom? Obviously, the custom the contentious ones are contending FOR, in opposition to the tradition Paul is teaching. That is, neither Paul and his ministry team, nor any of the churches of God, have the custom of men praying and prophesying with covered heads and women with uncovered heads.

To suggest that Paul is saying "we have no such custom as the tradition I just got done telling you to practice" makes absolutely ZERO sense. You acknowledge this when you say:

You then jump the ship of reason and fall overboard when you say this immediately following:

No, for him to tell the contentious ones "we have no such custom" shows that whatever the contentious ones are contending for, they are contending for something the churches of God do NOT practice. And since he just got done spending half a chapter instructing a church to DO (practice) a certain thing, it is clear that the "custom" of the contentious ones must be opposite to that which he just got done teaching, and it is also clear that what he just got done teaching is in fact the custom (actually,"tradition", the practice) of the churches of God. Which means anyone not doing what he taught to do is practicing something other than what God's churches practice, they are out of step with God's people, they are not conformed to the practices of the Congregation of the Lord.

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

Great breakdown, E.

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

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618447]
PART1

1. 'From the Apostles' you say? What Biblical evidence could you present to prove this assertion beyond referring only to 1Co11? As such it is only an assumption. 'Traditions received' you say? If these traditions you speak of were received from the 12 apostles, they had received them from the Lord Jesus. But we have no Biblical record of Jesus, or the 12, speaking on the subject of co/unco. If I'm mistaken about this then plz quote the references. If the 'traditions received' refers to traditions coming out of the OT, then quote the OT scriptural commands which would provide a starting point for an OT religious tradition. You will not be able to do so. If instead you speak of a custom coming from the 12 or the OT times, then I agree that there is a possibility that this is so. Traditions come from commands of God and customs comes from the likes of people, in my opinion/definition.

2. It must first be Biblically established as a co/unco tradition or not, before it is correctly said that Paul corrects them. The horse before the cart.

3. It's safe for any to say it in the way you just did, because it basically is a repetition of the scripture words. What it fails to do is explain without dispute what Paul refers to. People continue to look for an explanation which best shows what he means without having contradictions of fact or reason. Your opinions have been presented without showing evidence for support. I had hoped to see more from one who has the vast experience and knowledge shown here in AFF posts. Opinions are a dime a dozen and almost worthless when provided without evidence to support. Nor have you taken the time to show the error of my opinions, if you think them wrong. I fault no one for not doing so because it would involve a lot of time, but would welcome anyone doing so, not yet having been done.

4. Also safe to say it that way, as just repeating what the Bible says without expounding on it for clarification. What wasn't established without dispute is whether the shame and dishonour comes from some lack of keeping a command, or whether failing to line-up to social expectations. I conclude it to be failing to meet social expectations. You've not shown why you think my conclusion is in error, not shown contrary evidence/reasoning. Paul specifies prayer and prophesy times but doing so doesn't limit that the times of shame/dishonour are only in these times. Its most logical, when the glory of God is considered, that shame/dishonour could be year round, not just these certain times.

5. Yet, a man's and woman's interactions are not only on a spiritual God-level but are mostly on a social level. Men/women must maintain God's order on a social level. When on social levels they then may also be cultural interactions. And then to say that instincts aren't referenced is to say that instincts aren't ever seen expressed on a social or cultural level. What would be said about God if they say God ignores the expressions of instincts humans show in life? It would show God ignoring that which he had himself installed in Man. Why then show instincts in Ge3.16? God thrives on paying attention to details (hairs on our head, jot and tittle) and must be seen as also referencing in some way the instincts he placed in Man. Who wouldn't believe this to be true? God's expectations of Man must then also coincide with social and cultural life influenced by instincts or God ignores what he himself has placed in Man.

What is said about God's hierarchical order is clearly referenced by Paul as referring to what had happened at the Beginning. All should hold to this hierarchical order as truth. Paul has not seen a command in the Beginning for a respect for God's order, because there is none shown there. He has deduced this respect-for-God's-order conclusion just from the facts seen there. Respect for God's order of authority had not been commanded by God and this need to respect it comes to Paul by logical reasonings from what happened. But this doesn't make it less real or less unnecessary for all to do. It is apparent to all that it needs to be done - deduced by all without command. It is a universal principle not based on a command but events. God never commanded the respect in the Beginning, nor should it be said that he commands it elsewhere unless he clearly has. To say now that Paul commands all to show respect for God order of authority, just because he makes reference to it, is saying more about it than the text indicates in v3. If God expected respect in the Beginning without command, then who would we be to now command that which he hadn't then. Does God need unasked-for human help in this matter? He apparently has enough wisdom to do such things the way he sees fit without help. God today expects respect for the order of authority with the keeping of symbols but not by command.

6. Why do you say that God will leave it to Man to figure out? God will usually by command figure it out for Man to do, if he wants all to do it in a certain way. What you have said here without realising it is, that Man should be able to figure it out from what is in them when it isn't figured out previously by command. Thus you end up saying that which I say comes from within themselves - instincts. Thank you for agreeing with me and making my point. God never commanded co/unco anywhere in the OT. Quote the command if I am mistaken to say this. He expected Man to figure it out.

7. 1. You haven't clearly defined what you believe 'nature' to be. 2. It just as easy for a woman to cut her hair as a man. It is just as easy for a man to have long hair as for a woman (outside of social pressures which come from where? Human nature? Which comes from where? Instincts?). Why then don't they? Most don't because it is in their nature by instincts not to. I showed in my commentary, quite clearly I think, that when Paul talks about 'nature' that he refers to the way things are normally done, which could be said to be by following instincts. If co/unco was done by OT Jews it was done so by instincts alone, because there was no OT command for it. Paul's values have come largely from the OT scriptures. Plz quote the command from the only Book Paul loves that would lead him to believe that it would be 'nature' which shows co/unco to be based on scripture vs instincts.

[For those who haven't read the commentary, the following is said to clarify what I say about instincts. Ge3.16 says that women will have an instinct which will try to plz her man. Among her efforts is having long hair. Ge3.16 shows man has an instinct for rulership. He also instinctively likes nice looking things, which long hair on a woman satisfies. Any woman dissing her long hair disses her man's likes and rulership. She is out of order, by God's given instincts, to do so.
Man, men and women both, have an instinct calling them to cover when shamed or embarrassed. Perhaps more so for a man, who has higher needs for the respect of others. As shamed, a man does not glorify his Creator. He is out of order when not showing God glory, because it is his primary reason for being. The embarrassment-covering symbolizes a lack of giving glory. This is what I believe Paul refers to, in the man's cover in 1Co11. It comes by instincts. See the commentary for many scriptural examples of this.]

...continued on Part2.

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

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618447]
Part2

8. Perhaps so, because you've used good logic. Or rather, he could instead mean they are contentious about the way things are normally done in their society, which have developed from God-given instincts. Is this not also good logic? Which logic agrees more with what is seen in the OT scriptures which Paul loves and bases his thoughts and life on? Reader decide. Where does the evidence lead? Would it be permissible to state something which would lead any to believe in my conclusions/logic? If Paul reads the OT and sees no commands there for co/unco, does he conclude that God has commanded it, starting a co/unco tradition? No. If he sees no commands for it, yet sees the Jew practicing co/unco, what might he conclude as to its source? If Paul knows of the instincts referred to by Ge3.16 he may then conclude that which he sees, not only in the Jew's nation but also seen in many others, he might logically conclude that which is expressed in many nations comes from instincts. God-given instincts. It didn't come to many pagan nations by command of God. Why say that co/unco is seen in many pagan nations? Because researchers have said so and it is commonly believed, that most men over all time had short hair and most women had long hair.

It is historically accurate to say that the Gk women had a custom of long hair and also wore a veil. It is also historically accurate to say that some in Co were in the throws of a cultural revolution against their norms. It is the back-drop to what is said by Paul and perhaps also the reason why Paul writes. This is not Biblical evidence, yet still an example of showing that history helps unfold what the Bible unclearly says.

9. To say these are contending against an existing doctrine, known by all previous to Paul's 1Co11 writing, must only assume that a doctrine has been taught previously. We have no Biblical evidence of this doctrine from before Paul's 1Co11 words, which was penned c.55-60 ad. And it is seen till now, that his 1Co11 words are unclear enough to provide a doctrine which all can agree on. Paul may be referring to expected contentions from some in the Co church who act contrary to that which he has purposely expressed by the word custom, to be those customs which those in Co lived by. People, not God, have created a custom, and I would think to say that some customs come out of people's instincts. If not human nature then where do customs originate from?

10. You've well said what you said. I'll say that I don't agree though, seen from comments I've previously made about 'customs' and 'traditions'. What I will further say about your custom-of-contention view, is that customs usually take a longer period of time to form. To say the contentions of a minority few in the Co congregation have quickly formed into a custom may be straining against the understanding of how long a custom is usually thought to take to form.

11. You have assumed it is as a tradition. I have not. Plz provide some Biblical evidence of a co/unco tradition beyond just stating an opinion that it was. That many people believe it to be so is also not evidence, though having some weight. Had co/unco been commanded in the OT, then it could have developed into a religious tradition which carried over into the NT. Where are the OT commands for co/unco? References plz. Do you agree that OT religious traditions are based on a command of God? If not based on commands then they are just human practices - which I define as customs. An example of a Christian religious tradition is Communion, which was commanded by Jesus. An OT tradition was Passover. An example of a custom is the Christmas tree.

12. Thank you for saying this in a way which doesn't reflect on my character, focussing on the thought instead!

13. Plz bear with my definitions of 'tradition' and 'custom'. I realize there is a fine line between the definitions, and that the words are often used interchangeably. I believe that a distinction between them is important to the discussion. I prefer defining customs as coming from people and religious traditions from commands. Am I wrong on this? Paul refers to traditions in v3. He here in v16 refers to customs. He can be seen to do so for a purpose, wanting to make a distinction. Perhaps a look at the Gk lexicon may help.

That said, contentiousness is an attitude, not a custom. As explained in my commentary, contentions aren't usually referred to as customs. Customs and traditions are usually seen practised by the majority of a society, practiced over longer periods of time before being called customs or traditions. Are the contentious usually majority practioners? No. Are contentions usually thought to be customs that a majority hold? No. They are not then contentions.

14. On another note. Do you have an explanation as to why the OT has no commands for co/unco similar to that which is believed to be commanded in the NT? And/or: Plz explain how the pagan Gk have a word in their language which describes what is said by some to be a command of God - komao - long uncut hair.

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

1 Corinthians 11:2 KJV
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

The word translated "ordinances" means "traditions". The apostolic church in Corinth had received traditions, "ordinances", that were delivered to them by the apostle. The NT is pretty clear that there was a uniformity of faith and practice among the churches, Paul didn't teach anything the other apostles didn't teach, and vice versa.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 KJV
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Again, traditions delivered to the church of Thessalonia by Paul, either by his speaking or by his writing.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 KJV
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

There it is again, traditions delivered to the church by the apostle. The apostles were sent by Christ to establish the church, therefore their teachings in faith and practice are to be followed by apostolic congregations.

Matthew 28:18-20 KJV
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. [19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The apostles taught the churches everything that Jesus had commanded them. Which would include this stuff:

Acts 1:2-3 KJV
Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: [3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

2 Peter 3:1-2 KJV
This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: [2] That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

To suggest that you would not accept as obligatory any teaching or instruction of an apostle UNLESS you could find it written in one of the Gospels as the words of Jesus is known as the "Red Letter Only Error". The problem is, not everything Jesus stated is written in the Gospels:

John 21:25 KJV
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

The apostles were authorised to teach. That is what they did. Their teaching was unified, because Jesus didn't establish 12 different religions, one for each apostle, but ONE FAITH. Therefore, the apostles taught the same thing, the same doctrine, they were on the same page, and all Christians were expected to be on that same page as well.

I believe that since this incredibly simple and obvious error is where you started from, the rest is not really germaine to the discussion. Until a person understands that when an apostle teaches Christians ought to do some thing in some way then Christians are in fact to do that thing in that way, then there really isn't much point going further. You can do and believe whatever you want, but as for ME I am "apostolic", meaning my faith and practice is determined by the teaching and example of the apostles. THEY are authoritative for me, because it is only through the apostles that any of us even know Jesus existed, much less what He taught. Their doctrine is His doctrine, I believe on Jesus through the word (teaching) of His apostles.

If we aren't in agreement about that, which it seems we clearly are not, then there is no point debating "what" the apostles taught.

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

Awesome teaching Elder Esaias.

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

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618489] Part 1 of 2
Amen. We certainly are in agreement that the Apostles taught authoritively that which all Christians should follow. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. Nothing I say shows otherwise. But why a sudden heavy tone from you? See Ro14 where Paul tells all to be firmly persuaded in their own minds about things, though not agreeing on it with others. You seem to imply that what is believed must be by your interpretation of things, what you perceive the Apostles to say, to the exclusion of any other, on a passage,1Co11, which is unclear to many. Paul shows a different approach to differences of opinion in Ro14. Will you not conform to Paul's Ro14 teaching to be Apostolic in thought in this regard? See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e..._81tZcYKNy/pub


If you'd rather not get into 1Co11 discussions then no excuses are needed. You are indebted to no one as far as a discussion is concerned.

I trust that I am as Apostolic as any other Apostolic, because it is the new birth which has made me so, and dare I say nothing else can? Yes, entering into Christ by the new birth alone is what makes me a completed Apostolic, with or without belief in co/unco. I agree that all today who are born-again are so because the Lord Jesus commissioned the Apostles to continue the work he had started, using them to lay the foundational doctrines of the church for anytime following. Most would agree with this, yet not all Apostolics agree as to what is written in 1Co11, which disagreement you are aware of. If all those born again do not agree on 1Co11, does it then question which of these co/unco views are Apostolic and which are not, when it is genuine Apostolics who hold them? Don't all use the Bible for proof texts of their views? I trust that when you say that Apostolics must follow the Apostles teachings that you do not insinuate that those who don't agree on 1Co11 aren't all truly Apostolic though born again. Obviously, the view which God holds is the true one to hold and all others are misinterpretations of the evidence. Yet Holy Ghost filled, Jesus name loving Apostolics don't agree on co/unco. A Ro14 understanding should be applied.

I agree whole-heartedly about the red-letter error. While agreeing, it is still an extremely relevant observation to see that Jesus and the 12 don't talk about co/unco, and we have missing words. That they are missing carries weight. All know that which isn't spoken often has as much weight as what was spoken. There are sometimes strong reasons why things are purposely left out. Hence the court oath when witnesses are sworn in. The oath wouldn't be worded that way unless it was weighty. The absence of Jesus/12 words on the topic carries weight of proof.

You've used a lot of ink showing that the Apostles had uniformity of doctrine. While this isn't totalling irrelevant to our discussion I question why no evidence was presented about the topic - your assertion that co/unco was an Apostolic tradition. You've given a wonderful lesson on uniformity but none of it gives detailed support for the idea that co/unco was held by all. It is only broad, not detailed support.

Perhaps the following will help you re-consider what you say would prevent going forward, when nothing should prevent it in my opinion.

Well yes, certainly there were traditions of the Apostles. Of course. Who would deny this but a fool? But saying they all teach the same thing is a far cry from showing what exactly it was that they all taught. While not arguing that they didn't teach the same things, any just saying that they did haven't provided detailed evidence of what it was that all taught. Perhaps it is He6 which provides a definition for this 'same thing' which all believed. You've again made an assertion and again don't provide incontrovertible Biblical evidence to support that it is true, when you imply that everyone of the Apostles believed as Paul did about co/unco. What you have said is rational and logical but is assumption. Have you said that all Apostles and Prophets equally taught co/unco as a doctrine? It appears to be so. Yet even you as an Apostolic don't believe what the majority of Apostolics today teach about co/unco. Aren't you then contentious, when you don't follow the majority? Why should anyone listen to your words, or mine, as we both are seen as contentious. You stand on the Bible, don't you, as I also do. Doing so should make our view worthy of examination.

continued in Part 2.

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

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618489] Part 2 of 2

You say: Paul is known to say till we all come to the unity of the faith. This is an obvious indication that there wasn't consensus on every point believed, which you and I show by our example continues to this day. Inspite of this they believed in One Lord, One faith, One baptism. As you and I also do. Not having uniformity of belief on co/unco doesn't make anyone unapostolic.

Quoting Jn21.25 proves nothing. It speaks of the Lords actions and doesn't mention his teachings. It seems to me that you insinuate that the Apostles received things from Jesus which others aren't privy to. What happened to his admonition to shout what they have heard in secret from the roof tops?

But explain this about what Paul has said about traditions in v3. It is the following which may lead us to be able to carry on, changing your mind. If you say he had previously taught the Co and established a doctrine which had become a known tradition to them, which some are contending against, then why re-teach what has already been previously established as a tradition? It doesn't make sense to do so with something that you say is an established known tradition. Those who contend would be clearly rebelling against this tradition. Those who walk disorderly are commanded elsewhere by Paul to be avoided. Most Pastors are well able to address established doctrinal traditions issues in the congregation. Does Co not have a Pastor that necessitates an itinerant Apostle to address established tradition issues? Thus, does he knowingly waste his time with these rebels, who he says elsewhere should be avoided, ignoring his own teaching about avoiding those who are disorderly? The disoderly are to be avoided and those who conform to tradition need no re-teaching.

Rather this: Paul, in v2 is praising them for the traditions he knows they are keeping without detailing what they are, and there is something else he now wants them to know which they previously hadn't known. If He6 is to be the list of known doctrines/traditions which all NT preachers adhere to, it hasn't included co/unco. When he says But I want you to know it is implied that they haven't previously known what he will now teach. But is a word used to contrast. He contrasts what they show by obedience they know, traditions, with what they don't yet know. I know that you keep the traditions which I've previously told you of and now I want you to know that which I haven't yet taught on. Paul then teaches a new thing which he wants the Co to be aware of. Remember this: because co/unco wasn't commanded in the OT it never became an OT tradition, though held to as a custom. Proof this wrong and then we'll have something else to talk about.

Picture this potentially realistic hypothetical scenario: Paul either hears of, or is acquainted with by a visit, the cultural revolution taking place in Co citizens and knows of its effect on the church. He then leaves, if present in Co. He makes it a matter of prayer so he may be able to provide protection from its effects on a church he has started. God reveals to him what he now teaches as a new teaching for their protection in answer to his prayer. It is a new thing to him and them, which the absence of Jesus/the 12-mentions testifies to. Where else does the Bible refer to the order of authority but here alone, making it new? This shows a new realistic potentially true scenario. Because it fits it might be the view to hold.

You said

Quote:

Until a person understands that when an apostle teaches Christians ought to do some thing in some way then Christians are in fact to do that thing in that way, then there really isn't much point going further.

Well, of course all should do what is clearly taught by an Apostle. But what of the times when it isn't clear? Have you inferred that of me? Have I taken the time to write a commentary because I don't want to be seen as wanting to understand? Even among Apostolics there are disagreements of understanding of co/unco. How then is it possible for you to insinuate that any must do exactly what Paul says in 1Co11, when all Apostolics can't agree on what the Apostle meant? To insinuate that there has been clarity on what Paul teaches flies in the face of what is seen. Instead, it should be hoped is that a consensus view can be found which can be agreed upon, instead of saying there really isn't much point going further. Plz consider the instincts view as a view which, if believed, would bring Apostolic camps together in one, when amalgamating main points of their arguments.

I had hoped you wouldn't bow out but would take the time to consider and critique my points. It now appears that won't happen. It happens with you as has happened with other Apostolic preachers I've approached with my commentary. I got the feeling that if it wasn't the same as the established Apostolic doctrine then it wasn't worth taking the time to consider it, which they didn't. It is rejected just because. Even inspite of telling them it is a Biblically-derived doctrine which plugs holes. I had wanted them to take the time to examine the discrepancies seen in the currently-held-by-majority Apostolic doctrine. It would lead, if believed, to an adjustment of the doctrine to do away with the discrepancies. This is detailed in my commentary. The way it is now, Apostolic doctrines are avoided by some mainstream Christians who reject them when seen beside a co/unco doctrine which is full of holes. There is a need, which this Biblical instinct view may fill. Apostolic lack of consideration for something new, results then as being true among Apostolics which is also seen in other groups who call themselves Christians: if it isn't held by majority in my group then it's not kosher gospel. Oh, well. No one has control of another.

I would change my doctrine if proved wrong. No bothers to take the time to show my line of reasoning wrong. They just say it is wrong but don't provide evidence thereto.

One example of an Apostolic co/unco doctrine hole is: Paul says a man who has something down his head brings less glory to God because it covers the image of God. If true for a man then it would also be true for a woman, when they are equals as the image of God. The cover she is supposed to maintain at all times would then also lessen the glory of God. Is Paul trying to say that women don't bring God glory when having the cover they are supposed to have? No. The instincts view does away with this discrepancy, making it not appear. The view which the majority of Apostolics hold, uncut long, is a misinterpretation of the Biblical facts, which results in this discrepancy.

Thx so very much for taking the time to read the commentary. I sincerely appreciate your doing so and hope we can carry on a discussion.

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

Don

Look at this thread on the subject, it's remarkable, it starts with the Nazirite vow but then goes deeply into head covering. Various people argue the topic from different viewpoints.

https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ar#post1533609

**

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

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

Don, this is why Americans have to "choose" between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

And, it's why America is pretty much done for. I'm looking for the next phase in the big Scheme of Things.

I know you may not understand what I am talking about, and that's okay. If you know, you know. If you don't, well then this post wasn't really meant for you.

I wish you the best.

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

How’s it going with Don? :lol

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

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

I don't think you understand what "evidence" is, nor what "providing evidence" means. Just because you choose to maintain the opinion you started with, doesn't mean no evidence was provided to you. I provided plenty of evidence to show:

1. Paul taught men ought to be uncovered and women covered when praying or prophesying.

2. The apostles all taught the same faith and practice.

3. The churches of God were united in faith and practice. Therefore,

4. The churches of God practiced men being uncovered and women being covered when praying or prophesying.

5. Anyone contending for some other custom or practice was not conformed to first century apostolic Christian practice.

6. Anyone contending for some other custom or practice was not conformed to the apostle Paul's teaching and example.

I also showed (proved by reasoning, by logic) that:

1. You do err in concluding Paul taught that if anyone disagreed with what he taught it was okay.

2. You do err in concluding that Paul wanted Christians to do the opposite of what he taught if they didn't agree with what he taught.

3. You do err in stating the reasons for men being uncovered and women being covered while praying or prophesying is "instinctual" (whatever that means).

4. The reasons Paul gave for women being covered and men being uncovered while praying or prophesying were based upon the Genesis account of Creation and the hierarchy established by God.

5. The long and short hair issue raised by Paul was clearly stated to be a lesson from nature meant to illustrate the propriety of his teaching concerning the head covering.

The fact you "remain unconvinced" is quite simply not my problem. You have offered only your own opinions, which in this thread and on this topic seem to mirror the opinions you expressed on other topics you have raised on the forum. Basically you seem intent on "proving" that the apostles, especially Paul, don't have to be believed and/or obeyed. For example, previously you were arguing that people can be saved by "right living" in spite of Paul's clear statement that EVERYBODY was classed as "under sin" and in need of salvation and forgiveness, and that forgiveness and salvation come ONLY through faith in Jesus Christ.

I'm going to be honest, you really do seem to me to be trying to justify reasons not to simply believe and obey the Bible. I do not know why. I do not understand the felt need to contradict so much of plain Scripture. And then, when others list reasons, address your statements, and provide evidence for conclusions OTHER than and contrary to your own, you ALWAYS assert "nobody answers questions, nobody addresses my points, nobody provides evidence, they just say I'm wrong but never even try to prove it."

Which makes having discussions with you rather uninteresting. I have debated every kind of person, both here online and in person, on just about every subject imaginable. I know how to discuss opposing viewpoints. And yes, I was on my high school debate team. :) I have no problem discussing things with people who believe differently. I DO have a problem trying to discuss things with people who for whatever reason assert absurdities and plain untruths about the discussion being had.

As I said previously, if YOU want to believe whatever you want to believe, that's fine by me. You don't and won't answer to me in the end, that will all be between you and the Lord Jesus Christ. I can't control what you believe. But I CAN control whether I will voluntarily subject myself to gaslighting.

Which I won't.

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

Having a discussion with Don is like using bands and chains when you bench. :lol

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

Esaias, this is how Don views the whole of scripture.

Don sees Jesus and the Apostles as holding to a set of opinions. If you follow them, ok. If not, then that is cool as well.

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

Everyone says this, but is it actually true? The Bible isn’t Rocket Science. There are thousands of verses that are as clear as crystal. Yet, people in different religions, cults, and denominations can’t see top, side, or bottom of the truth contained in one simple verse. We become ecclesiastical politicians developing Pentecostal word salads to defend a position which is not defendable. Connecting verses together which clearly are taken out of context. Yet, we use “I would change my doctrine if proven wrong” as a mantra of religious piety. Hey, don’t get me wrong there are those who are sincere, and will change if corrected on a view. Yet, they don’t fly the flag of “if I’m proven wrong I’ll change my belief!” It’s like someone telling me over and over that he has been doing such and such for 30 years. The only reason they repeat it over and over, is because they themselves don’t believe it. The Bible is symbolic and literal, hermeneutics can easily be deciphered if we are willing to learn the thread that flows through scripture.
Yet, Jesus wasn’t kidding when He said that we weren’t to give pearls of great price to pigs, and the Holy items to dogs. There isn’t any fruit to it. Jesus is the good Shepard and His sheep know His voice. His sheep won’t follow the Stranger.

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

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618545] Part1/3. Esaias: I want to thank you for providing a polite reply.

Quote of me from a previous post: I would change my doctrine if proved wrong. No *one* bothers to take the time to show my line of reasoning wrong. They just say it is wrong but don't provide evidence thereto.

For one example, Esaias says in post 14 "Paul establishes that what is being discussed are the "traditions received" by the church from the apostles. He provides correction regarding the Corinthians' practice, to bring them into conformity with the apostolic traditions concerning head covering, the Lord's Supper, and the conduct of people during the meeting." . I call him out on the lack of evidence for this and he then provides evidence, but continues by saying the following:

[QUOTE]I don't think you understand what "evidence" is, nor what "providing evidence" means. Just because you choose to maintain the opinion you started with, doesn't mean no evidence was provided to you. [QUOTE]

Had the evidence first been provided unprompted, there would have been no need for Esaias to be called out, nor need for his snarky reply. People who don't provide evidence make assumptions of other's knowledge; or conversely, want their opinions believed just because they view themselves as an authority. There is no doubt that Esaias is an excellent authority here on AFF but he is not above the need to show sources/evidence for the opinions shown without evidence in post 14. All who aren't privy to his knowledge then seek proof, not wanting to rely on human opinion alone. He then subsequently gave an excellent, enlightening reply on the unity of opinion of NT believers/preacher. Snarky comments should be left to be used as a last resort. Get snarky with someone snarky, which is not me.

It is safe to just re-state scripture using other words. But it doesn't actually take the time to show what Paul wants to be done. I've done so in my commentary. Along with showing how I've shown how currently held views are deficient, with what I call holes. This was done, mostly focussing on the view held by the majority, which I call uncut long. Knowing that your belief is that a woman needs a veil and not believing in uncut long, if you still hold the same view expressed a few years ago, I'll now address some holes in that view.

You will agree that 1Co11 has its view of the order of God's authority, which is based on what is seen at the Beginning. I'm not aware of any other Biblical writer to talk about this principle. Brilliant Paul is the first and only. What does this indicate to us? Paul is introducing something new, which is old as the Beginning, but hasn't been brought out to the open for all to know, v3.

The moment Adam was created it would be expected that he should honour his Creator. Was the needed respect coming from a command or was this deduced from the fact that he should, just because he was much inferior to his Creator? That no command for Adam's respect is seen recorded there, leads to the conclusion that the expected respect wasn't by command but because it was logical/right for Adam to give it. God never commanded respect for his order of authority at the Beginning and this needed respect continues to this day by the same means it is first seen - without command by what comes logically when an inferior is in the presence of a superior.

Yet some will say that this expected respect must now be seen as a command, showing that they think God needs help with the method he used, which he needs no help with. Some will say that God now commands this expected respect in 1Co11, by commanding the keeping of head-symbols. If believed so then God has changed his mind in the method used. He now no longer believes about the needed respect as he did at the Beginning, saying that a command must now be added. This isn't logical. All the parts are the same. God. Man. Woman. They have not essentially changed from the Beginning and it shouldn't be said that God now has added a command he could have given at the Beginning. Had the Lord ever wanted to command co/unco, the logical first place it would be seen is right at the Beginning. And what then of the keeping of symbols, if they aren't commands. Because they aren't commands doesn't change anything about the expectation that they should be shown. The thing which changes is whether they are commands. Which view, command or expectation, agrees most with what is seen in the Beginning? The Beginning is the basis for Paul's thoughts and seeing co/unco as expectation best coincides with what is seen in the Beginning. Seeing the need for co/unco coming about from instincts fits well because instincts shouldn't ever be seen as commands.

Enter Eve, who was created after Adam. From the moment of her creation it must be assumed that she should reverence the one she was created for, showing respect for God's order thereby. She wouldn't have come into existence unless the Lord had wanted to satisfy Adam's lack - no partner for Adam. She was created as a partner, as a helper to him. Was she expected to show respect for the one she was created for because God commanded her to? We have no record from the Beginning of such a command. The respect was a logically known expectation, similar to Adam's needed expectation to respect God. Some say that 1Co11 shows a command for this respect by the keeping of symbols. But, same story, second chapter. God needs no additional help with the ways and means he first showed he used in the Beginning. His wisdom ordained what is shown. If he doesn't command at the Beginning then he shouldn't be seen to command in 1Co11, changing methods, when all the parts are the same as they were at the Beginning. God expects man to respect him. God expects woman to respect her man. But not by command. It is right by logic to do so.

Esaias believes that the needed respect women should show is symbolised by her wearing a veil, only during prayer/prophecy times. Did I get this right, Esaias? In Esaias' view, Paul, rather God, is seen commanding women to wear a veil. If all the parts are as equal as they were at the Beginning, then the symbol Esaias believes is commanded, would have been needed to be worn by Eve, right? Even before the invention of clothing like veils - for she was naked. Or does Eve not need to show respect to God's order by the keeping of symbols because she doesn't have a prayer/prophesy time? (Let's also keep in mind that the needed respect was in effect before the Fall and didn't come about because of the Fall. It came about the moment of her creation.) And what evidence from the Beginning can be shown that a veil was commanded of her? What evidence do we have that a veil was available to her? None is shown. Also, no command for a veil is found anywhere in the OT. If it is commanded for the NT, then it should also be for the OT, for Paul bases his arguments from OT thought. The glaring absence of an OT command for a veil speaks, and all should take heed. But does Paul not speak of veils in 1Co11? Of course, but it should not be seen as by command. Better is to see that Paul/God does not command. Had God commanded in the Beginning or anywhere in the OT then we'd have something to talk about.

The history of Co shows women who practised long hair and the veil. It was a custom all were culturally expected to follow. To go to a place of public worship without a veil would flaunt the rules that most followed by custom. Paul wants the Co Christian to follow the custom that most follow, for reasons similar to the circumcision of Timothy. No one would say that Timothy was commanded to be circumcised according to the Jewish ways, nor should anyone say that the following of a Co custom of veiling by Christians was commanded. If so, it would be from love like Timothy's which "commands", not law.

Had God actually commanded a woman to wear a veil then we would also rightly expect to see the giving of details of the nature of the veil, for women to correctly satisfy the command to cover. We see nothing of the sort, nor the presence of a veil command other than what is misinterpreted from 1Co11. Paul asks, not commands, the keeping of the custom. The conclusions of 1Co11 should coincide with what is seen in the rest of the OT. Paul knows the OT and has based his life on it as the Word of God and wouldn't present views to Co which don't coincide with what had its start at the Beginning, nor not coinciding with the OT. How we interpret 1Co11 should also conincide with what is seen in the OT, not oppose it. The OT didn't command the veil and we shouldn't conclude that Paul does so now for the NT. Views which express this should be closely examined and modified to do away with this. A view can be held of 1Co11 which conforms to the Beginning, the OT and the NT. What is shown in the Beginning happened outside of Covenant and any view of respect for the order of authority should be seen to coincide with any Covenant seamlessly. The Covenant established with Adam commenced after the expected respect for God's order of authority commenced.

If Paul commands a veil in the early verses of 1Co11, then he changes his mind in a later verse, 15. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering (veil). If given, then given by who? God. Apparently, a reader can choose which verse to obey. But it is better to see that Paul commands neither hair nor veil. The OT commands neither and the words Paul uses should not be seen as commands to show alignment with the OT view of it.
Anyone wanting to see the holes of uncut long can read them in my commentary.

continued in 2 of 3

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

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618545] Part2/3.

You again conclude without showing what is concluded. He6 is the scriptural list of commonly held NT beliefs. Co/unco is not on it. If no one considered co/unco as a command then it would explain its absence.


Agreed, to a point. They did have differences of opinion on some things. Shown by Paul saying till we all come to unity of faith in the same passage he says One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. See also Ro14;15a.


Saying so does not give explanation of how it was so. 1Co11 has many views expressed of it, by godly people who love him and the Word. It is easy to say that all should believe as God does on any subject but harder to state what this is, to everyone's satisfaction.

What's happening with this comment? Are we now drifting to a position which shows that history shows how scripture should be interpreted? Did I get it right? If by saying 1st century you mean Biblical then who would disagree? The dilemma all face is finding that which you say is Apostolic practice. As of yet, no consensus has been agreed upon for all to follow. Many opinions exist all built on scripture and logical reasonings. But these contradict one another, having holes. If the instinct view has holes then they need to be exposed. I'm biassed for my own opinion and may have trouble seeing them. Plz critique the instinct view.


OK. I'll buy into that (said facetiously) and say that anyone who doesn't conform to my interpretation of what Paul says is failing to conform to Paul. You want me to buy into your view of scriptural interpretation, don't you? I want you to buy into mine. My view may be as scripturally-derived as another's and should then be able to fit into this. It must be conformed to as much as any other view must be conformed to. I believe it to be a view which doesn't contradict most established theology, being Biblically derived.


Reader, take note of the extensive (said facetiously) reasonings to back his claims that I am in error by logic.


What you've stated is a conclusion and is not showing a line of reasoning showing my errors. Naw. What I say fits the facts quite well and should be held to, from a custom point of view. Customs aren't commands, so if someone decides not to follow a custom they only contradict society. Saying otherwise shows contradicting him. He says we have no such custom. The view you express results in Paul saying we have such custom and we all follow it. It takes the 'no' out of scripture, which is incorrect to do. Don't tamper with scripture, even if it seems logically correct to do so. What I show in my views is logically correct. It doesn't logically result in the apparent removal of a word Paul/God purposely uses.


You would be right to conclude so. Paul is smart and doesn't throw words on paper without reason. He wants people to follow his teaching and example. But saying so doesn't explain what it is that Paul clearly teaches. Spirit filled Apostolics disagree on what Paul teaches here, throwing barbs and accusations at others who have similar motives as they: they want to walk scripturally compliant. What is needed is a scriptural view of 1Co11 which Apostolics can unite around, in a view which honours all main points. I believe the instinct view to do so.


According to Ge3.16 Eve and all women are born with a desire (instinct) that she will want to plz her man. Among many other things, she will want to try to satisfy her man's desire (coming from his nature/instincts) for pretty things. Long hair vs cut short or shaved hair, helps achieve it and is a cover on her head. If she cuts her hair short she disses her man's desires. She steps out of order by dissing, showing she doesn't comply with God's design (instilled by instincts) and doesn't respect the order of authority. But it is not a command. God never commanded respect for his order of authority in the Beginning and it should not be said that he changed his mind for the NT. Co/unco exists outside of Covenants, even when it is practised by Covenantal people. Would we not believe that all God-fearers previous to Paul would have shown due regard to God's order of authority? Yes. But if by Covenant then we have no evidence thereto. If not so, then show the command for the OT, for Adam, for Noah, for Abraham to prove this wrong. They all showed regard for God's order of authority, it should be assumed, and doing so without having a command thereto. If they had followed their instincts they would have shown this regard by the keeping of symbols. Instincts, not commands, is a common factor all had.

A man's instincts about shame are to cover the head when embarrassed. Thus, his words in v4. Something hang down the head is the meaning of the greek word here for cover. They are not man's instincts alone but also woman's. A shamed man does not glorify his creator, who would want all his creation to be proud, not ashamed of who they are. If a man habitually wears the cover symbolic of embarrassment he indicates a habitual state of embarrassment, who doesn't bring God glory. The cover on the head then would symbolise this lack of getting God glory. The symbol should not be present habitually for this reason. Men, because they have the instinct telling them to do so, have a feeling that when they are covered that they are in a shameful position. As men, they are more aware of these feelings, because they also have an instinct which calls them to rule their woman, Ge3.16. Rulers call for respect from those they rule. It is part and parcel of being a ruler. Because they are aware of this rulership instinct it makes them more aware of needing to show respect, than a woman would be aware of. She wasn't given a rulership instinct. Whether with long hair or a material cover men feel they are in a state of shame when covered. Their instincts, not commands tell them this. This is what has led men in most societies in most ages to have short hair. Long hair feels wrong because it is similar to wearing the cover which people want when embarrassed. Their instincts tell them this. And instincts aren't commands. But these feelings are easily overpowered by social pressures, resulting in times when most men had long hair. Short hair is instinctual and instincts aren't commands. The OT has no commands for men to be short haired, having commands for some men to be long-haired. Paul should be seen to have views coinciding with the OT he loves. What is seen in the OT is certain holy men are commanded by God to have long hair, contrary to what is said to be Apostolic doctrine from 1Co11. For Paul to command men to have short hair would show a rule contrary to what the OT shows by command.

Does 1Co11 clearly show that Paul speaks of instincts. Probably not. It would be unlikely to prove empirically that Paul speaks of instincts in 1Co11. It is a conclusion, which if embraced, leads to a view which doesn't have holes like the other views have. If it fits the facts well, then it may be the view to hold. It does not contradict theology other than 1Co11 theology. 1Co11 was written in an unclear manner. Therefore, most views on it rely on assumption to an extent; a mixture of logical reasonings, history and Biblical facts. It may not be right to then say any particular view is wrong. Obviously all will be partially right at minimum, because they have come from sincere people who desire to know truth to incorporate into practice, building on the Biblical facts. Whichever view one holds will then be the view which is the most logical to them to hold. No one should be judged by another if holding another view. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing for a short commentary on Ro14;15a. Instincts and their effects are seen in the Bible. To say I err when speaking about instincts is to say that the God who placed instincts erred in placing them. He placed them as guides which should be followed but doesn't make them commands which results in punishment those who do not follow them.

continued in 3 of 3

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

. END of 3/3

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

[QUOTE=Evang.Benincasa;1618586] 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.

Reader, plz bring up in your own post any good thoughts which he brings up on the current topic, to hear my reply to it.

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

[QUOTE=donfriesen1;1618590]If it was good enough for Elijah it’s good enough for me.

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

The biblical basis for head covering during worship is rooted in the creation order and hierarchical relationships established in Scripture. In 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, Paul addresses the Corinthian church's questions on worship practices, emphasizing recognition of authority.

He establishes the divine hierarchy: God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman (1 Corinthians 11:3). This order reflects Genesis 2:18-24, where God creates Adam first, followed by Eve's formation from Adam.

The concept of κεφαλή (kephalē) is crucial, specifically referring to authority (1 Corinthians 11:3). This understanding is reinforced by Ephesians 5:22-24 and Colossians 3:18, emphasizing submission. In worship, head covering signifies recognition of this authority.

Κατακαλύπτω (katakalyptō) means to cover or veil (1 Corinthians 11:6), while ἀκατακαλύπτω (akatakalyptō) implies shame in uncovered or unveiled (1 Corinthians 11:5). Nature teaches by example that long hair serves as a natural covering (1 Corinthians 11:15), and angels witness worship, emphasizing reverence (1 Corinthians 11:10).

The symbolic significance of head covering isn't related to culture as the Corinthian culture was pagan. Paul emphasizes timeless scriptural principles and divine hierarchy. Head covering symbolizes spiritual realities: submission, reverence, and recognition of authority.

The biblical guidance for head covering during worship stems from creation order, hierarchical relationships, and symbolic significance. By embracing this practice, believers demonstrate reverence for divine authority and recognition of timeless principles.

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

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618592]

I'd like to have a little more understanding of the place you stand. Could you specify what it is you believe in this regard? Most of my thoughts have been developed around what I label for convenience "uncut long", which I think is the view held by the majority of Apostolics, man and woman. Does your believe have a label that would id it? Can you direct me to a summary of it, for man and woman?

In a reply to your post, there would be no sense for me to make statements that are directed to uncut long, if you in fact don't believe in it.

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

[QUOTE=donfriesen1;1618624]I'm avoiding the debate over uncut vs veiled and focusing on the mandate being based in scripture and Apostolic authority rather than an optional suggestion.

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

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

1. Paul taught men ought to be uncovered and women covered when praying or prophesying.

2. The apostles all taught the same faith and practice.

3. The churches of God were united in faith and practice. Therefore,

4. The churches of God practiced men being uncovered and women being covered when praying or prophesying.

5. Anyone contending for some other custom or practice was not conformed to first century apostolic Christian practice.

6. Anyone contending for some other custom or practice was not conformed to the apostle Paul's teaching and example.