[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

PART 2/2. Continued from post 205.

I've tried to show that the instincts which are seen in both Ge3.16 and 2Sa15.30 are placed by God, and that the only Book Paul holds and loves, the OT, does not show a command for long hair or veil on a woman, nor a command against a covering for a man. The instincts placed by God were done by God for a reason, and the best for Man is to do them as designed by God. This does not mean that they are commands. When the instincts are properly regarded they result in seeing both man and women giving regard socially to God's order of authority by symbols. Giving regard to God by social symbols is a spiritual value. Symbols are spiritual values. Voila, this agrees with them being equally the image of God, as seen in the spiritual parts of Man. It only makes sense that both male and female should be said to show proper regard to the order of authority and for both to do so with symbols when they are equally the image of God. This is accomplished socially by proper response to instincts. A woman's relationship to her husband is largely a social relationship. It should be said to be seen to come from instincts because God has not ever commanded, until 1Co11 is misinterpreted so. When 1Co11 is misinterpreted, as uncut long and the veil view do, it leads to many rabbit holes, and should not be done so. Rather a view should be held, which doesn't lead to rabbit holes. This is found in the instincts view. The instinct view agrees with the facts which are seen in the whole Bible. The veil view and uncut long do not.[/COLOR]

And Esaias takes a pass on point 4. And we agree that the lex shows the custom of the veil in 1Co11, and Paul uses the veil-custom word, don't we Esaias?

All people who read 1Co11 make up a theology of it, even the veil view is made up. Esaias attempts to smear me when using words with loaded connotations - making up. Should Esaias get a pass on point 5, or not? Does holding the veil view give the man a pass from showing symbols? My opinion is no. Perhaps Esaias will respond.

The conclusions of uncut long, show that what is most important for the woman is whether she has uncut hair, vs having hair long enough to cover. Paul speaks of both long hair and cover.

Pardon me for disagreeing. I have not made this up in my deep, dark, echoing pit. The uncut long view says that the moment a woman determines that she will never cut her hair is when she covered. She may only at that moment have 1" hair, yet she is believed to be covered by the determination of her will. This is the uncut's long view in its simplist form, for the woman.

True, and accomplished only by an actual physical uncovering. Not so for the woman in the uncut long view. Boiled down to it, for the woman it need not actually cover, just be uncut. Thus unequal rules are applied to those who are equally in the image of God. One is accomplished physically, the other not entirely physically - by obedience to what is said to be a command - be uncut, not covered.

Education is a great thing.

If God commands a thing then no other appeals to anything are required. God said, 'Have no other gods before me'. He appeals to nothing other than his will. He gives no reasons. Just do it. If Paul would command in 1Co11 then he needs no excuses of reason, or appeals to nature, or anything other than what God wants. He certainly wouldn't ask the Co to judge among yourselves to see if your human opinions agree. When the Beginning, when the Age of Innocence, when the Age of Conscience, when the Age of the Law, when Jesus says nothing of co/unco, when the other apostles say nothing about co/unco, it shows that a command is unlikely. Co/unco is a custom which is practised in Israel without command, which same custom is also practiced by many pagan nations of many times, showing congruency with the idea that Paul refers to a custom and not command. I actually was awake for the geometry class, and we wonder if you were.

Amen, so true.

Well said. Good point. And then, what about judge among yourselves and that other long sentence seen above? Reader, don't hold your breath for an answer. Esaias would already have given an answer to this because this isn't his first rodeo. This is not the first time it has been put forward by me.

I thought my comment showed this as self-evident, that nothing further need be said to anyone reading. Obviously not, that I need to expand my words. The readers thank you for pointing it out and giving opportunity to explain.

How can you object to something you can't understand? Does not compute. The social practice of the veil is exchanged by the spiritual practise, in the uncut long view, according to its erroneous interpretation of v15. They believe that the word 'for' should be understood to mean 'instead of, in exchange'. Long hair is exchanged for the veil. While this meaning of 'for' is one of acceptable correct meanings, it is illogical to do so. See my commentary, post 1, which Esaias has indicated he has read. Pages11-15; p.32 @Someone is distorting; p.46 @para 2; p.116@ Found in Apostolic lit.

You take a pass here as well.

No? Not illogical to tell Christians that a custom practised for centuries has now become a tradition for you to hold by command? I'd say, its my opinion, that God would not transform a custom into a tradition/command for the Christian. (See 1Co7.17-24, where he tells the Co to keep the social standing they were called in. If he tells them to keep thier social position, then the keeping of a custom is not far behind, is it?) Instead, he would tell the Christian to maintain the customs of their country, and I'll give you an additional command to follow, if so. In Ro13 he tells the Ro Christian to keep gov't laws, which are only laws of society (from a governing body). Do what society tells you to do, he says in so many words, but for command sake? No for conscience sake. Paul does the same in 1Co11 with the veil custom and their custom of long hair. Thus, it would not make sense to say a custom has been exchanged for a spiritual command.

But, you know, the air in this pit may not be very good down here. It, along with the echos and darkness may be affecting my thinking. I may need to get some good air up around the gods where Esaias resides. Readers, you may notice I sometimes say nice things about Esaias, in all sincerity, because I think them to be true. And Esaias usually says bad things about me. What motivates him? What motivates me to make negative comments of him, as I've just done? The snide comments he makes, makes me respond in kind. My first preference is not to make any comments such as these. Criticize opinions? Of course. Of course. Necessary.

And so Esaias makes a non-response response. Esaias doesn't want to hear it, nor respond to a good point. Instead he diverts. Oh well.

Hey, what happened to your not commenting on uncut long?

Your referencing leads to an examination of both practises. Jesus showed footwashing as an example that there would not be big shots in his Kingdom. Is this how the pagan Greek practiced it and did Jesus then borrow it into the Church (if you believe it should be followed like communion)? Or did Jews also practice foot washing as a social custom and Jesus used a common practise (also of many nations) for illustrative purposes. You may be wrong to suggest that Jesus borrowed from pagan Greeks. He borrowed from Jews. Do you have evidence to show otherwise?

Does the comparison for hair stand up to the same scrutiny? The Hebraic Jews used Greek language for everyday life. That the LXX exists and the NT was written in Gk testifies to this. Paul uses a Gk word which reflects a long held Gk practice. Their women practiced long uncut hair. Because of this borrowing of language, Paul is said by uncut long to be teaching/commanding uncut long hair. It thus is shown that Paul turns a custom into command. (What isn't determined by the word komao, is whether uncut means so in a strict sense or in a practical sense. Most would see the Gk using it in a practical sense. That they had long hair didn't prevent trimming of it, which the uncut long prevents because it desires to be technical and not practical in its definition.)

Yep, Don does compute and does it well. Esaias fails to convincingly show errors of my reasoning. What should be done when truth is presented? Should it be accepted or rejected? Wise persons give it serious slow examination and acceptance when not refuted.