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

[donfriesen1]

The devil need not tell someone to do somethin

g, to get them to do it. All he need do is

suggest it, and it often is enough. Oh, the

power of suggestion goes a long way! It is not

necessary to accuse someone of something to

smear them. All you need do is suggest it. That

alone often is enough to smear. Are they a

Trinitarian? Are they a Brahnamite?



There are readers in AFF who are looking for

truth. These readers will use their discernment

abilities when examining posts. They will

discern between posts which only want to

make insinuations of another's character (while

not making scriptural/logical arguments); and

the posts which take the time to make

explanations of their view points. While not

everyone has properly developed methods of

discernment, many do. Which, of the two

profiled, will gain any secret adherents? People

love truth. Some are willing to die for it, to

sacrifice anything for it.


see post 342.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

COMPILATION.

Evangelist Dominic Benincasa is a man who has great knowledge. He has

posted here on this thread 43 times. You may have noticed that he does not

contribute much of a Biblical perspective from this great knowledge. He does

not say much against the iv by way of reasoning or scriptural refutation. He

spends much effort, 32 of his 43 posts, only making comments about me.

The focus of his comments are about me and not scriptural views. We do not

learn from his posts what it is he believes of 1Co11. But four of his posts are

a congratulatory type, high-fiving another's vv points.


5 of his posts are commenting on the topic of the thread: 93, 146, 201, 276, 289.


What Dom has said/would say in support of the vv: (This assumes

this is his view because he 'Amens' Amanah and Esaias, who hold the vv.)

1. Says that Paul is a God-inspired writer, p93.

2. Says Paul says there should be no arguments about what he teaches,
p93.

3. Says what Paul teaches was a custom in all the current churches, p93.

4. Says Paul was giving instruction and not suggestions in 1Co11, p276.

5. Provides secular historical facts, p289.


Arguments Dom uses against the iv:

1. He says I write about then-current issues of secular modesty, p93.

2. Says the Gospel of Inclusion (the iv?) is winging it, p146.

3. Says I believe that Paul's views are Paul's opinions, p201.

4. Says I believe that if anyone disagrees with Paul that they can go on

their merry way, p201.

5. Says that I believe that God gives opinions to Man, p201.


Questions of reason and points left unanswered by Dom:

See p47 and p340 for many of my points which have not been addressed by

either Esaias or Dominic.



I conclude that Dom wants you to believe as he does just because he says

so. He has provided little of substance from reason or scripture to give

support that you should believe as he believes. Nor much of substance to

show the iv is wrong. He is capable to do much more but for reasons

undisclosed has chosen not to in this thread.

Don, you have issues.

So, yes, or no, were you part of the Branhamite group from Edmonton?

[donfriesen1]

Paul says of the man, that 'he is the image and

glory of God' v7. When he also says, v4 'Every

man praying or prophesying, having his head

covered, dishonors his head.', this is interpreted

by some Apostolics to mean 'long hair is sinful'

because long hair 'hangs down the head' (the

meaning of the Greek word 'covered' only in v4).

If manly long hair, by its presence alone, just

by being there, reduces the glory of

God, then it must be that it is because

the image of God is covered. If Paul is telling us

that the presence of long hair alone is sinful,

then he indicates the image of God is in the

flesh of the man, the head, which is covered

to reduce it.




If this is so, then wouldn't the woman also

reduce the glory of God by the presence of long

hair hanging down the head? She also is the

image and glory of God, ever so much as man

is. Yet, it is thought that she should have long

hair. v15 says 'if a woman has

long hair, it is a glory to her' and not

a dishonour, as for the man v14.



No one believes that Paul believes the image of

God is in the flesh of man. Therefore, an

interpretation of v4 must be found which

doesn't give the impression he does. 2Sa15.30

and Es6.12, plus many, many others, give us

the impression it is a head covered when

shamed, is that which indicates less glory for

God. If a man is dishonoured it automatically

reflects on his God. So David went up by the

Ascent of the Mount of Olives, and wept as he

went up; and he had his head covered and

went barefoot. And all the people who were

with him covered their heads and went up,

weeping as they went up. / But Haman hurried

to his house, mourning and with his head

covered. To see 'covered when shamed' as the

reason for God's lesser glory, fits. It fits the

Greek defn and is scripturally based. (check the

LXX for its use of words in these many verses,

to see if Paul uses the same words as the LXX.)

Paul means that a covered man when shamed,

and not the presence of long hair alone, is that

which reduces the glory of God.



But what then of v14 'Does not even nature

itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is

a dishonor to him?' For what it's worth, Paul

says the dishonour is to the man and it does

not refer to dishonour to God (this does not take away

from 'if a man is dishonoured it automatically

reflects on his God'). Where does Paul get the

idea that dishonour to a man comes from long

hair? Is it a scripturally-based idea? Does the

only scripture he has, the OT, convey the idea

that long hair is shameful?




I know of four OT men with long hair. Samson,

Samuel, Absalom, John Baptist. (If you wonder

why Elijah is not included, ask me.) Of the four,

three are honourable men who glorified God

with long hair. (The one today thought

dishonourable, was not then thought

dishonourable, until he sought to seize the

throne. Before this he was thought to be the

most beautiful guy. He was held in honour.)

With that is this, those with a greater

committment seen in the Nazirite vow, are

commanded of God to have uncut hair,

resulting in long hair for life-long vows.

God must think these are honourable. Paul

does not get the thought that long hair is

dishounorable from the OT. It is not a scriptural

concept from the only scripture he has.




Paul refers in v4 to that which hangs down the

head. The veil or mantle which was worn by

men of those times, and used to cover them

when shamed. Paul would not teach that long

hair is sinful on a man, because the Book he

loves, the OT, does not show it as such.



The many experienced AFF posters who have

read my posts (or commentary, link is in post

1), have not refuted what has been here today

repeated. Either they don't want to take the time,

wanting instead to waste resources/time with

deep theological thoughts and

comments like: "silly" or "wrong"; OR, the

concept is irrefutable. My bet is on the latter,

leading to questions of why it is rejected by

those who say they love truth above all else.

The evidence is clear. Truth is rejected by those

who only claim to love truth, for reasons

unrevealed.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=donfriesen1;1619804][COLOR="Black"]

[SIZE="3"]I know of four OT men with long hair. Samson,

Samuel, Absalom, John Baptist. (If you wonder

why Elijah is not included, ask me.) Of the four,

three are honourable men who glorified God

with long hair. (The one today thought

dishonourable, was not then thought

dishonourable, until he sought to seize the

throne. Before this he was thought to be the

most beautiful guy. He was held in honour.)

With that is this, those with a greater

committment seen in the Nazirite vow, are

commanded of God to have uncut hair,

resulting in long hair for life-long vows.

God must think these are honourable. Paul

does not get the thought that long hair is

dishounorable from the OT. It is not a scriptural

concept from the only scripture he has.

Thus,

Paul would not portray in 1Co11 what would

contradict what the OT shows.

[Evang.Benincasa]

[QUOTE=donfriesen1;1619805]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

[COLOR="Black"]


Thus,

Paul would not portray in 1Co11 what would

contradict what the OT shows.

Do you refer to William Branham, as Brother Branham?

[Esaias]

[QUOTE=donfriesen1;1619805]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

[COLOR="Black"]


Thus,

Paul would not portray in 1Co11 what would

contradict what the OT shows.

There are approved examples of animal sacrifices for sins in the Old Testament. Would Paul contradict the need to sacrifice animals for sin in his New Testament writings? Would Paul portray in his New Testament writings what would contradict what the OT shows regarding animal sacrifices? Can Don even grasp what I just posted, and how it bears on his position? Etc etc etc.

[jediwill83]

Almost as if there is interaction with a crude LLM that is compiling arguments and minutiae of comments and spitting them out but lacking reasoning and comprehension...not only that but severely lacking the ability to connect and interact in a way that would lend itself to his goal of persuasion...if persuasion is indeed the real object of the interaction.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Almost as if there is interaction with a crude LLM that is compiling arguments and minutiae of comments and spitting them out but lacking reasoning and comprehension...not only that but severely lacking the ability to connect and interact in a way that would lend itself to his goal of persuasion...if persuasion is indeed the real object of the interaction.

I'm amazed by the dogged persistence in spite of the lack of encouragement or support.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1619807]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

There are approved examples of animal sacrifices for sins in the Old Testament. Would Paul contradict the need to sacrifice animals for sin in his New Testament writings? Would Paul portray in his New Testament writings what would contradict what the OT shows regarding animal sacrifices? Can Don even grasp what I just posted, and how it bears on his position? Etc etc etc.

Thx for your posting, Esaias. I will later respond to it.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Almost as if there is interaction with a crude LLM that is compiling arguments and minutiae of comments and spitting them out but lacking reasoning and comprehension...not only that but severely lacking the ability to connect and interact in a way that would lend itself to his goal of persuasion...if persuasion is indeed the real object of the interaction.

Thx for your posting, jediwill83. I will later respond to it.