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

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Only because I am bored...

It is illogical to say that John, the prophet of the Lord,
commanded baptism (Luke 3:3) as a symbol to show
repentance towards God. Why? Because baptism is a
human invention. This can be said because the 4020
years before John's preaching shows no commands for
the baptism of repentance.

That is Don's logic in operation. Now compare that to
the scripture:

Luke 20:3-7 KJV
And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you
one thing; and answer me: [4] The baptism of John, was
it from heaven, or of men? [5] And they reasoned with
themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will
say, Why then believed ye him not? [6] But and if we say,
Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded
that John was a prophet. [7] And they answered, that they
could not tell whence it was.

Too bad Don wasn't there to help them out, he could
definitely have told them "Clearly it was from men, because
(insert Don's logic here)".

Thank you Esaias for the response. That you respond after a

season of silence speaks to something, even while you think it a

total waste of time with my senseless arguments. It testifies to a

self-admittion, that you have not been entirely honest with your

self, that points of the iv have been turned aside, rejected without

proper attention. Such self-admittion is good to do.





To respond to your latest point: The Jews practiced water

purification rites. See Le14,15; Nu19. What was commanded

them, morphed into the practice around what was called mikvah -

submersion in water. Jews added this ritual to what God

commanded. Perhaps the Jewish reasoning behind the

uncommanded mikvah was, if sprinkling of water represents

cleansing, then immersion represents greater cleansing. It was

not illogical to think so. John B knew these scriptures, and of

mikvah. Esaias knows of this practice/scriptures, yet makes his

comments, even though they oppose what he says.





John B, was son of the priest Zechariah. Elizabeth was also of

priestly lineage. As such he was a candidate to become an active

priest when of age. Did he receive training for this role? Maybe.

But was called to be a prophet. As such he was somewhat similar

to Samuel. They both appear to be Nazirites. As this

priest/prophet he fulfills his priestly role and uses water

purification rituals, submersion in water, in his ministry. He by-

passes the corruption in the Temple system.





John B then would have known that what he was commanded to

do was not contrary to scripture and practice. He says this:

he who sent me to baptize with water

Jn1.33. He was commanded. He did not argue with God about it

when it wasn't seen in the OT. His baptism was not contrary to

scripture and practice. As such, it was not new. Jesus endorsed

John B's practices, even though the OT did not command baptism

or the mikvah.





On the other side: Esaias preaches the head covering of a veil.

This has been deduced from his comments in AFF. He can correct

this if wrong. He would argue, because he has said so in the past,

that the veil is a brand new thing, commanded of God through

the Apostle Paul in 1Co11, for the NT alone. The OT does not

contain commands for a veil, similar to what is said to be

commanded by Paul. It is a new thing without links to the OT

scripture, which links John B's water baptism has. Thus, the

comparison Esaias makes to refute my point is unequal.





No Jew was commanded the keeping of the veil in the OT

scriptures. They could not quote a reference to show support that

it was based in the OT. Thus, if Paul commands it, it is a new

thing by command. Mikvah was not new and what John practiced

as baptism was not new. Though new by scripture, the veil was

not new by practice. When it was practiced, it was by custom

alone. This custom was practiced by many nations and cultures in

many eras. It made sense to these pagan societies to do so, but

not from command of God. Jesus never endorsed the veil as he

had endorsed baptism.





The analogy Esaias makes to prove my reasoning wrong is a false

comparison. What is also wrong is the methods of interpretation

he uses. He interprets Paul's words about the veil as commanding

the veil. Paul does speak of the veil, just not commanding words.

Thus, Esaias would call his doctrine a scriptural doctrine. But

when Paul has the OT as a scriptural base for doctrine, he would

not command that which the OT shows no support for. Paul's life

is all about the OT Word. Thus, to command the veil is a

misinterpretation of Paul's words, because a look at the whole

Word shows no support for it.





If it is said he commands by revelation from God, then why does

he bother referencing the OT to show support/source for his

thoughts. It would not be necessary to do so when from

revelation.





If Paul references the OT in 1Co11, as a base for his view, then

the OT should exemplify what he teaches. Is this not logical? The

OT does not for the veil, for 4050 years. But Esaias will say that

which he sees as a command to 'show respect to God's order of

authority with symbols' is only for the NT saint. Thus he shows,

those humans before Paul are not shown needing to show respect

to God's order of authority. This makes no sense, when it is

considered that nothing about God, man, woman has changed

since Man's creation which would indicate a change is needed. All

of humanity should be considered needing to show respect by

symbols, if any are. The lengths that Apostolics go to, to show

that the OT shows that they also believed in uncut long, testifies

that this thought is a common understanding to many. A&E

should be seen as needing to show respect to God's order of

authority by symbols because they are what Paul uses as a OT

reference in 1Co11. It makes no sense that if Paul references

them, that they should not be seen to also do that for which they

have been referenced for. This is not seen, using the reasoning

Esaias uses. He uses a microscopic examination of 1Co11 to show

support that his view is a scriptural interpretation. As such, it is a

scriptural interpretation. But a macroscopic view of all the Bible

fails to show this view with support. The OT should support the vv

(because core elements of it, God, man, woman are there, and

Paul references this in 1Co11), but it doesn't. The vv is right by a

few NT verses but illogical when all of scripture is considered.





It is better to hold a view which is in sync with all of scripture.

This is in line with logical thought. Trinitarians point to Mt28.19

and say 'see Trinity baptism is a scriptural baptism', ignoring all

the Jesus name baptism scriptures. Their interpretation is a

scriptural interpretation but a misinterpretation compared with

the whole NT. Their method also ignores what every scholar says

about formulating doctrine: 'don't build doctrine on one verse.

Read the whole book.' The same mistake is made with the vv. Its

only scriptural support is in misinterpreted 1Co11.





Better is to hold a view such as the instincts view, which ignores

no scripture or fact. It incorporates what is seen in the OT, NT,

and history by logical sound reasoning; into a view which is in

agreement with all the facts. (I've begged for a critical

examination of the iv thoughts. Todays post is a good start to it.)

Those that hold the veil view (and the uncut long hair view) do a

good job at ignoring facts. (It is not yet said that the iv ignores

facts.) This ignoring should not be when a scriptural view is

available which is almost without any hiccups. This is said

because the iv does have hiccups, seeming inconsistencies, which

my conjecture addresses. But the view of 1Co11 with the least

amount of hiccups should be the one to hold. Don't you agree?




It would be painful to switch views. It is against human nature to

turn back from a stance which has been defended for years. But it

should be done when new evidence calls the traditional into

question. Switching can be done. I did it, so can others. Its not

easy to do so, when the resulting backlash is unpleasant. But

truth demands, not asks, that it be cherished.





Drop the 'uncut long hair' view, because it has many hiccups

scripturally and logically. Drop the vv because it is similarily

deficient. See post 1 for a link to my commentary. (It contains a

paragraph which shows the correct view of para and galah.

Amanah had pointed out that what I had said was deficient. I

agreed after reading it. I made corrections. I am for truth and

make adjustments when necessary, no matter if it agrees or

disagrees with my previous views.This is how a Christian should

live. It is nothing special.)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

How DARE you!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Only because I am bored...

When I was young and bored we would set up a ramp. Then ride our bicycles over it at the fastest speed we could muster. Alas, it didn't end well.

As does an attempt brought on by boredom to answer Don.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Evangelist Dominic Benincasa

would have you believe, without also providing any Bible

arguments to show the iv wrong. See post 342. He's AFF's self-

appointed Daddy who would want you to obey him just because he

says so. Hi, Daddy Dom. Siblings never let another sib assume the role of

Daddy unless the real Dad has said so. No one wanting to talk Bible wants

to get tangled with name

calling and saber rattling. I am one of those. It is an unwanted

reality of AFF when caused by someone taking the first step which

many feel must be responded to, resulting in the unpleasantness you

and all others have felt. Daddy Dom's unpleasantness was carried

over from a previous thread) doing so, then so be it.



It is time posters show agreement by saying so. What is done instead is only

saying 'Wrong', without showing how so or why. Posters will reply and say

'we provided replies which show you wrong'. But plz refer to post 305,

339,340,342 for a compilation of what they say proves the iv wrong.

See for yourself how their boasts of proving it wrong fall far short of their

claims. Efforts have been made by some on some points but they have not

yet tackled all points of the iv. Those things they say show it as wrong have

been responded to and refuted, without a comeback by them.

Daddy?

Where you get off calling another grown man "daddy?"

Do you have some sort of pyschological deep issues?

Do you attend a local congregation?

I think you've been alone way too long.

Oh, and by the way....
















you are wrong.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Daddy?

Where you get off calling another grown man "daddy?"

Do you have some sort of pyschological deep issues?

Do you attend a local congregation?

I think you've been alone way too long.

Oh, and by the way....
















you are wrong.

Definitely more of a "Pops" kinda guy for sure.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Definitely more of a "Pops" kinda guy for sure.

[donfriesen1]

Just posting here to provide an insight.

It might be profitable if an examination of Posts 392-5 and Posts

400, 402-6 were examined in light of the depth of Biblical discussion

going on in them. Check it out for yourself.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Just posting here to provide an insight.

It might be profitable if an examination of Posts 392-5 and Posts

400, 402-6 were examined in light of the depth of Biblical discussion

going on in them. Check it out for yourself.

We’ve already been down this road. No reason to revisit.
Your writings are laborious when we first give them the once over.
No one wants to take that endeavor on a second time.

Did I also tell you that you are wrong?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Just posting here to provide an insight.

It might be profitable if an examination of Posts 392-5 and Posts

400, 402-6 were examined in light of the depth of Biblical discussion

going on in them. Check it out for yourself.

Readers may or may not notice that the posts are

not written by donfriesen1. Those who check will not need to be told this.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by tithesmeister

[right]don,...

...I am typically of the
school of thought that to discuss a subject is better
than accepting the status quo or the conventional
wisdom. I believe in the principle of iron sharpening
iron.

However, i do have a thought for you. I hope you accept
it at face value which is to help you and to edify the
church, which is my goal. I don’t have any other axe
to grind ( other than iron sharpening iron, see what i
did there?)

the thought is that you have stated that no one has
proven you wrong. Let me say in a kind way, if
possible, that you have your protocol backwards. It is
not incumbent on me or anyone else to prove you
wrong. It is your responsibility to prove your point with
scripture. Otherwise think of the reality of and the
responsibility to us to go around proving every false
doctrine to be false.

You are making a position based on silence, in my
opinion. Prove your point with scripture, or admit that
you can’t. Sometimes it’s best to leave the question
be rather than provide an answer that is not true or
that can’t be verified. There are some things that only
the father knows. You have a theory. I think you lack
evidence sufficient to support it. I think that the same
can be said for the other side of the debate. Them
being wrong (possibly) does not equate to you being
necessarily right. Or vice versa.

God bless you and your studies.

You've said some wise things.

Hopefully life's circumstances won't get in the way

to keep you from sharing more of it in the future.



Who speaks for God/truth?



God has appointed some to speak for him. The

devil has also appointed some to speak for his own

views and to speak against/corrupt the way of God.

Also speaking are the self-appointed, claiming to

speak for God as called and anointed, but actually

speaking for themselves. To the novice believer

who has decided they want to walk in truth, it can

be quite confusing to decipher God's voice.



You've chosen to speak. I'm grateful to hear your

thoughts.



Because you've spoken, we must discern who you

speak for. It is the task of all who read to determine

whether the words you speak are truth or not. Are

they worthy to be made a part of our

understanding or worthy to be discarded. The

powers of communication of thought comes with a

responsibility in both the giver and taker. It is built

into our nature by the image of God, that when we

speak we must communicate truth. It is also built

into our nature to determine whether what others

say is truth or not. We've learnt that a better life

depends on being able to do so.



As a Canadian, I can tell you that our culture here

conveys to us that what another says is not met

with the above criteria. The prevailing attitude is

that what another believes can be ignored because

it can. I'll believe what I want and allow another to

believe what they want, and this may ignore that

this can be harmful. This flies in the face of 'no man

is an island. We are all part of the mainland'.

Everything that is said and done has an effect on

others. Thus, we do have a responsibility to one

another in what we say. We have that responibility

in AFF postings.



We could all say that God has spoken out for his

views. It is through his Word. It is true to say so.

We could be ambivalent to what is said by others,

by thinking to ourselves that all others can compare

what is said and broadcast, with the Bible. While

this is true, this is not a practical approach, nor the

approach that the Bible shows. It says that the

church of the living God, the pillar and ground of

the truth. God has placed the responsibilty of truth

on the church. Thus, the church, which really is a

conglomeration of individuals, has the responsibility

for truth. We are individually and collectively

responsible for our part in the process of

determining truth. No Christian can say it is not my


job to guard or propagate truth. It is all our job.


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

While believing the above to be true, I yet will

agree with you that it is not right to expect that it is

someone elses responsibility to prove or disprove

what is heard. If anyone would feel the need to be

correcting everything that is broadcast in the world,

then their job would never end. It would take them,

and another million like them, to tackle such a

monumental task.



The responsibility of sharing truth and refuting

error then becomes a matter of the individual to

decide if and when. I would not pretend to know

how this would be correctly decided. But glib

turning aside a responsibility may be sinful to do.



That being said, what then happens in a scenario in

AFF, where something is published, examined and

then declared to be in error, but no rational reasons

are given why it is in error and rejected? Or, if

rational refutations are given but only partially to a

point or two, ignoring the rest - what then? They

could then say 'I've refuted', while others see it as

incomplete. What has happened by actions such as

these is a posturing as an authority. The exercising

of this authority shows them as the true judge of

all things. If proclamation of their claims are made

without explanation to the reasoning, or are

incomplete, then what is actually portrayed is

similar to the role of a dictator. You must believe me

because I am the authority who I say I am. They

speak and give readers the impression that an

authority who has spoken has made a right

proclamation. If that method is used to decide how

church doctrine is discussed, then I find fault with

it.



Siblings may reject the self-assumed authority

which another sibling tries to take over them, even

if the assumer is older. Those who position

themselves with this authority, position themselves

to be challenged. 'Dad didn't say that and don't try

to boss us'. This is especially true when another

sibling has insider knowledge they alone know of.

'Dad hasn't given you authority to lord it over us'. I

am possessor of an experience which I cannot deny.

I was there when it happened and so I ought to

know. My personal experience with God testifies to

me as a lone insider, that what was gained was not

by means of an intellectual pursuit but revelation.

Only those who've had a similar experience know

the feelings of that experience. Yet I will not boast

that I have a revelation that all must believe in. I'm

of the sort who believes like the world believes

about scientific research. If you make a new

discovery you submit in peer publications for peer

review. The presentation of my view was submitted

to AFF, hoping for a thorough review and critique.

I've begged for this and hope it will yet happen. My

estimation of what has happened in responses to it

is far short of what was expected. See Post 305,

339, 340, 342 for a compilation of what others say

proves the iv wrong. You will see that their critiques

are mostly flawed and and do not address all the

points of the iv, when you compare them with what

I have presented in my commentary and in AFF.



Those who take a stand as an authority on Bible

interpretation have set themselves up as The

Authority. It then is right and proper that The

Authority should be demanded of, to show the how

and why of their assessments. As showing

themselves as The Authority, they have set

themselves up in a position to be challenged. If God

has made you boss by your interpretations, prove it

from the Word, if so. They say they speak for God

and should show how the Bible shows they speak

for God. It is proper to make such demands of The

Authority on the important topic of truth. No one

gets to be The Authority without peer examination

of their claim or being contested.



Truth has the characteristic that it is readily seen to

be truth when revealed. Truth is not complicated. If

someone says 'believe what I say' without giving an

explanation, then the motivations are not pure.

They are hiding something for some reason. Those

who play the game of truth readily show their cards

when others ask. True lovers of truth want all others

to see all their cards. Christians are hard pressed to

play a game where someone doesn't show their

cards. Christians in AFF are hard pressed to listen

to The Authority when The Authority doesn't show

their cards.



Thus, it is proper to demand that someone who

poses as an authority on a subject be called on to

show why or how they are the authority. This has

not been done in those who say they have the

authority to declare the iv in error.

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

Tithesmeister, examine your own statements.

You've said that you've only half-read what was

written in this thread. If so, I assume you've also

not read the commentary found in the link in Post1.

Am I correct in this assumption? Are you then

qualified to pass judgments on the iv (instincts

view) as one who has not read what is presented?

You said in your posting: You are

making a position based on silence, in my opinion.

Prove your point with scripture, or admit that you

can’t. Sometimes it’s best to leave the question be

rather than provide an answer that is not true or

that can’t be verified. There are some things that

only the Father knows. You have a theory. I think

you lack evidence sufficient to support it.

If you haven't read the commentary (I dont know if

you have or not) which contains the points of

evidence for the iv, then can you rightly say the

things implied? The Bible says something about

hearing a (whole) matter before passing judgment.

(Having said that, in my commentary I've stated

that 1Co11 is written in such a way that allows for

many interpretations. None can be proved beyond a

shadow of a doubt, in my opinion. They all rely on

conjecture in their proofs to varying degrees. I

there state that the iv is one of many possibilities.

But in my opinion, it is the view with the least holes

of logic. You'll no doubt agree that the most logical

view of many conjectured views should be the one

held closest.I've presented many arguments, which

viewed together, lead one to the believe that the iv

is sound reasoning and scripturally-based at the

same time.)

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

I too, like you, believe that iron sharpens iron. For

that reason I've begged for a critique of my points.

As it sits now, I'm alone in my views, labelled an

outsider, feeling alone as such. I don't like the

feelings of that place. Yet, I believe in something

which I believe I have received from God. If

someone could show it wrong by critique, then I

could disgard it and again take up the view which

would show me as acceptable. Some have made but

feeble efforts thereto. Most of the efforts of

refutation given in this thread have been to show

support to their chosen view, rather than showing

the iv wrong. I've asked many questions, most of

which have not been answered. (See the

compilation posts.) Until the iv points are proved

wrong, here I must remain, alone. Truth demands it

be stood on and defended.