 |
|

12-06-2024, 11:54 AM
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 546
|
|
Re: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
At the top is the quote to post 137 that Don referenced. As I pointed out several times, I did not say "God does not command except for the new covenant church". I said 1 Cor 11 is for the new covenant church. In another more recent post I pointed out the discrepancy between what I said, and what Don said I said. I also pointed out that it was a non-issue and I was moving on.
Yet here we are. Yet again. With Don and his little quibbles and false accusations. "We are confused"? Who is this "we", Don? I seriously doubt ANYBODY ELSE is "confused" about what I have been saying or where I stand on the subject of 1 Cor 11 and headcoverings.
"Do you believe that Paul only commands for the NT people?" Do you see what you did there? See how you reword the statement? See how you have now shifted the actual discussion?
Do you REALLY think Paul could command for old testament people? how would that work, since Paul is a new testament author, a new covenant apostle, and not an old testament prophet living back in the by gone days of yore? Please, by all means, tell us how that is even a consideration?
You are straining at gnats. Not straining OUT the gnats but AT the gnats. The fact you persist in this silliness shows everybody exactly who is being dishonest and who is trying to actually discuss things.
Let me make it absolutely unmistakably clear to you:
1 Cor 11 is an apostolic ordinance for the new covenant church of God. 1 Cor 11 was not written to the old covenant congregation while they were under the old covenant. It is written to the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.
That is what I have maintained from the beginning. Now bug off with your goofiness. (Talk about 'wasting AFF's bandwidth". sheesh.)
|
Much of what has been said here won't be responded to by donfriesen1, having been done in previous posts.
Quote:
Yet here we are. Yet again. With Don and his little quibbles and false accusations. "We are confused"? Who is this "we", Don? I seriously doubt ANYBODY ELSE is "confused" about what I have been saying or where I stand on the subject of 1 Cor 11 and headcoverings.
|
And you then give an example of you being quibbly by mentioning this 'can't be unanswered' topic of Who is this "we"?
Quote:
You are straining at gnats. Not straining OUT the gnats but AT the gnats. The fact you persist in this silliness shows everybody exactly who is being dishonest and who is trying to actually discuss things.
|
In all honesty, I do not make determined efforts to deceive. Frustration of my words has led you to believe this, while frustration of your words leads me to believe this about you. Lets move on past this, shall we?
Quote:
Let me make it absolutely unmistakably clear to you:
1 Cor 11 is an apostolic ordinance for the new covenant church of God. 1 Cor 11 was not written to the old covenant congregation while they were under the old covenant. It is written to the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.
|
Thank you for taking the time for clarity. I present for serious consideration, that what is commanded for the NT church should also have been the same which should have been commanded for the OT people. Why? It makes sense that if all the players are the same in both places, that all the rules of the game should be the same in all places. The players in this game are God, man, woman. The players are the same in the OT as they are in the NT. The veil view says God commands a rule for the NT game. What we can't see anywhere in the OT scriptures is God commanding the veil rule for the game there. This exhibits a giant hole which has been brought courtesy of the veil view. This hole shouts loudly 'Something is wrong here'. The believers of the veil view do nothing to close the hole. When it is pointed out, they close there eyes to it, pointing to 1Co11 and shouting 'See. Veil command'. This is the only response they have.This testifies that they willingly ignore giant holes, wanting to continue in an irrational view of 1Co11. I repeat now for the umpteenth time: What explanation can be given that the OT does not show any commands for the veil, when it should?
Quote:
That is what I have maintained from the beginning. Now bug off with your goofiness.
|
It is not goofiness. The instinct view is built on an examination of scripture and life. God is not the author of goofiness.
|

12-06-2024, 04:13 PM
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 546
|
|
Re: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jediwill83
So why did he offer his hair once a year?
|
The details of 2Sa14 are few but enough to see that he cut it yearly because it was heavy. Nothing there indicates it was done as an offering to the Lord. Those who believe so do so by assumption. Its this same assuming done that those who believe that Paul commands either the veil or uncut hair, in 1Co11. He does not clearly state either as a command. It is assumed he does. The 10 Commands have a command structure: Thou shalt/shalt not. It is very clear. 'Ought to' of 1Co11 is not the clear structure of a command.
That the Jews held to the idea that Absalom was a Nazarite is telling. They had no scriptural evidence for Absalom as a Nazarite yet they must have felt a need to explain why this Jewish man had long hair. Also known to them was the knowledge that the OT did not have a command against long hair. That they had determined to describe him as a Nazarite may indicate that they saw him as an anomaly. An anomaly deviating from what norm? Not a command and perhaps from what human nature usually directed men to. Short hair. That which directs men to have short hair may be the instinct.
That the male nobilty had long hair (including godly nobility?) also indicates that it was not considered against a law of God to do so. Men may for various reasons choose to live contrary to their short hair instincts, or in women, against long hair instincts. The instincts are not laws of God, which show sin when not adhered to. Rather, they indicate an internal force directing Man to live a certain way, but not considered sin if not. Ie, God can command a Nazarite man to have long hair (if having a very long vow) and not be seen to command contrary to the instinct when instincts aren't commands. God can command a Nazarite woman to cut her hair, though contrary to the instinct directing women to have long hair. God does not command to sin. Instincts may correctly be seen to be suggestions.
Often Men wrongly indicate that Absalom held long-hair as a source of vain beauty. But do vain long-haired people yearly shave the head, turning instantly from a beauty to an ugly? No, they cut just some. Enough to maintain their vanity and do not shave to ugly.
That the Israeli held the idea that Absalom was the most beautiful man in Israel testifies against any notion that they held the same views of manly long hair as 1Co11 wrongly interpreted does. They would have said he was ugly with long hair. They didn't. The Israeli did not have the same values that are wrongly said to come from 1Co11.
|

12-06-2024, 04:19 PM
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 546
|
|
Re: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
.
|
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.
|

12-06-2024, 06:18 PM
|
 |
New User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Northwest Zion
Posts: 3,330
|
|
Re: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.
E,
What of trimming?
__________________
“Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.”
-Homer Simpson//
SAVE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP
BUY WAR BONDS
|

12-06-2024, 11:47 PM
|
 |
Unvaxxed Pureblood
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,917
|
|
Re: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diakonos
E,
What of trimming? 
|
As a man you should definitely be trimming your hair.
|

12-07-2024, 09:55 AM
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 546
|
|
Re: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.
[QUOTE]
PART 3/3
Quote:
but rather he is CORRECTING ERRORS in practice
|
I agree with you here...
Quote:
by pointing the Christians to the true and correct Divinely ordained practice
|
...but not with you in veil views of commanding, or a command of the veil.
Quote:
The fact that Paul introduces the discussion with "I am glad you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you" indicates he is discussing an apostolic church ORDINANCE. The fact he begins verse 3 with "But I would have you know..." indicates he is CORRECTING the church's failure to practice THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE CORRECTLY. Namely, there were SOME in the church not following the ordinance, and the church had not corrected the issue themselves. The contents of both epistles to the Corinthians show that Paul is for the most addressing QUESTIONS sent to him by the church, about several issues. They were basically asking the apostle "What do we do about this and that and these situations?" and he is giving his apostolic answers, explaining the correct apostolic course of action. The church for the most part is doing things correctly, but there were several issues where apparently some of the members weren't completely on board with the apostolic program. We see this in his discussion of the Lord's Supper, his discussion of spiritual gifts and the conduct of the basic church meeting, the presence of sectarianism, the continued undisciplined presence of a known fornicator, etc
|
As stated before times, your logic is flawless when put together and applied to the veil view. It fits well. Yet it should be amended or discarded and what is seen in the Beginning used as a foundational starting point. Why? 1. God never commanded respect for the order of authority at the Beginning (nor for the Age of Conscience nor for the period of the Law). Not using what is seen in the Beginning as the foundation stone leads to accepting views like the veil view. The veil view ignores the law of Firsts. Whatever comes first is the foundation for what follows. Whatever is first is truth, which all other are compared to. To apply the First principle with an example shows the start of creation with no command for either the veil view or the uncut long view. A change takes place after the Fall, called the Age of Conscience. What was built there in regard to respect for God's order of authority follows the precedent set in the Beginning. There is no command found. Ditto for the period of the Law. Not until 1Co11 is misinterpreted do we see a variation from the principle set at the Beginning. There, God expected Man to show respect for his order of authority but not by command. It was inconceivable that Man would not show respect when God's rationality had been placed in Man when made in his image. Man knew by his rational mind alone, without need of a command, that he should respect God's order of authority. Man needed no command, yet knew what they should do. The veil and uncut long views cannot use the Beginning as their foundation stone because they both say God commands. Their first steps do not lead them down God's pathway to proper conclusions. They start out wrong and finish wrong. 2. The evidence of the veil/uncut-hair-command-OT-tradition is slim to non-existent before the words of Paul are misinterpreted. Co/unco is not practised in the OT as a tradition but as a custom. If it had been a tradition there, we would see commands for initiating this tradition. The evidence of the veil/uncut-hair-command-NT-tradition is slim to non-existent before the words of Paul are misinterpreted. The Lord does not mention it while on earth. The 12 do not mention it in their writings. Paul is the only one. Hard to see it as a NT tradition for any NT-time before 1Co11. Thus, you show that first steps taken will take you to a wrong destination when they point in the wrong direction. v2,3 should not be seen as referring to tradions of co/unco because they mislead to hold views which are out of sync with the only Word Paul has in his hands.
Quote:
So in conclusion, Paul's teaching regarding the head covering is just as applicable today to us as it was back then to them. The reasons still exist, therefore the expected response is still the same.
|
I agree while stating our conclusions are different.
Quote:
I notice Don is STILL going on about "where is the old testament command for the veil?" I honestly do not know why that is still being raised.
|
To repeat what was said in an earlier post as an illustration of a game. A box game is placed on the table at the Beginning and at 1Co11. The boxes are identical, and it is assumed that both places would play the same game. But examination shows no rules for the game at the Beginning but rules are seen at 1Co11. They can't be playing the same game because things aren't equal, even though the boxes look the same. What we know from Paul is that the games are the same because he says so. He states in so many words that the game played in 1Co11 is the same game as the one at the Beginning. If they are the same game, then it is logical to expect the same rules would be played both places, especially since the 1Co11 game is a copy, a clone of the Beginning game. Because the Beginning game is the original, they must be the exact same game with the exact same rules. We've been misled to think that the 1Co11 game of the veil view has the same rules as the Beginning game or the Conscience time or OT game.
Quote:
This is essentially a liturgical issue,
|
No one should argue that liturgical issues aren't different. Rather, what should be said is this. Because the veil view has started out wrong, it conclusions as a command should be scrapped. They have an appearance to be right but closer examination shows then out of agreement with the First steps/principles seen at the Beginning. It also is out of sync with what is seen in the Age of Conscience and the OT times. It is also wrong to see co/unco for just times of worship/liturgy. Why? 1. Angels are not only present during worship. 2. Nature, a sociological term, is not only active during worship. 3. Headship is not only active during worship. 4. Man and woman are not only the image of God for times of worship. 5. Man does not come from woman and woman does not come from man only during times of worship. 6. If long hair is thought to be wrong as a man's covering, then it would not be thought wrong only for times of worship. 7. If a woman's long hair is thought to be her cover, then it would not be a cover just for worship. 8. If a woman's hair is her glory, then it is not only for worship, especially if it is covered by a veil. For the above reasons it should not be expected that co/unco is just for times of worship. That the veil view (God commands the veil) interprets v5,6 as they do can't be faulted except when compared with the remainder of the passage and with the first 4050 yrs of Man's history, where God commands not the veil. It is seen in this history as a custom of many nations, including the Jew.
Quote:
Again, since God can command something ANYWHERE in Scripture, then God can command something in 1 Corinthians 11, which is binding on us today. To suggest that "God does not command anything in 1 Cor 11 BECAUSE we see no such command in the old testament" is to beg the question, it is circular reasoning. There is no such requirement for any command of God in 1 Cor 11, that is, there is no requirement that God command something in the old testament in order for Him to command that thing in 1 Cor 11, nor is the lack of an old testament duplication of the teaching in 1 Cor 11 a proof or evidence that 1 Cor 11 contains no command.
|
Huh? That makes no sense. If God expects people today to reverence him then he expects all people of all times to reverence him. If God expects women today to reverence with a veil then God should be seen to expect all women of all times to reverence him by a veil. Not to do so would be to show God showing respect of persons, which he doesn't do. Respect for God's order of authority was 'established' the moment A&E were created, and it had nothing to do with any covenant Man may live in. It existed before any covenant was established and thus exists outside of covenants or the times the covenants are active. Thus it can't be just a NT thing. Whatever it is must exist uniformally for all times.
|

12-07-2024, 09:55 AM
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 546
|
|
Re: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.
PART 1/3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
So, going off memory, since i can't actually quote the relevant part, it seems that Don is asserting that Paul is on the one hand instructing the Corinthians to practice the veiling of women while they are praying or prophesying, but on the other hand he is not 'commanding" anything, therefore there is no obligation being imposed upon the Christian in 1 Cor 11.
It seems to me that this is oxymoronic. If Paul is telling the Corinthians to do something, then he is "commanding" them to do something. So he can't be telling them to do something, while simultaneously telling them "do or do not, it doesn't matter". Because if it didn't matter, then why bring it up in the first place?
Also, in reading 1 Corinthians 11, it sure seems like Paul is establishing what can be called "universal truths". That is, Paul establishes as true certain things, that were true then, and are true today. They were true in Corinth, and they are true in Dallas, and everywhere else.
1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
This was true then, it is true now. It was true there, and it is true here.
1 Corinthians 11:4-5 KJV
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. [5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
This is a conclusion he draws from the previous truth. The condition is stated in verse 3, and the conclusion that results from the condition is stated in verses 4 and 5. The condition results necessarily in the conclusion. In Corinth in the first century, the condition was true, therefore the conclusion was true. Guess what? The condition is still true today, even in Texas. Therefore the conclusion is likewise true. That is to say, since the head of every man is still Christ, and the head of the woman is still the man, and the head of Christ is still God, then it follows that every man praying or prophesying with his head covered still dishonours his head, and every woman praying or prophesying uncovered still dishonours her head.
Paul's conclusions in verses 4 and 5 are asserted as being true. Paul does not attempt to "prove" them, he simply asserts them. Now, if we think of Paul as a mere man with no apostolic authority and not inspired by the Holy Ghost, then we can dismiss his conclusion as merely the unproven assertions of a nobody, with no authority. However, if we believe Paul to be an apostle, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, then his assertive conclusion is the assertion and conclusion of the Holy Ghost, and thus of God Almighty Himself.
Everything else in the apostolic teaching in 1 Cor 11 concerning head covering follows from this base. Since the base is still valid, then the instruction is still valid. It is unequivocally true that every man praying or prophesying today with his head covered dishonours his head, and every woman praying or prophesying today with her head uncovered dishonours her head.
Paul does not state as the condition or basis of his doctrine any supposed "customs" or "instincts" or "traditions of the pagan Greek culture". Rather, the basis for his doctrine is the assertion in verse 3 concerning a divinely ordained hierarchy of headship. Since a God-ordained hierarchy of headship is not dependent on any social culture, but instead flows from the will of God Himself for His people, then Paul's teaching is not to be viewed as him simply affirming a continuation of a pagan Greek cultural practice, but rather he is CORRECTING ERRORS in practice by pointing the Christians to the true and correct Divinely ordained practice. The fact that Paul introduces the discussion with "I am glad you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you" indicates he is discussing an apostolic church ORDINANCE. The fact he begins verse 3 with "But I would have you know..." indicates he is CORRECTING the church's failure to practice THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE CORRECTLY. Namely, there were SOME in the church not following the ordinance, and the church had not corrected the issue themselves. The contents of both epistles to the Corinthians show that Paul is for the most addressing QUESTIONS sent to him by the church, about several issues. They were basically asking the apostle "What do we do about this and that and these situations?" and he is giving his apostolic answers, explaining the correct apostolic course of action. The church for the most part is doing things correctly, but there were several issues where apparently some of the members weren't completely on board with the apostolic program. We see this in his discussion of the Lord's Supper, his discussion of spiritual gifts and the conduct of the basic church meeting, the presence of sectarianism, the continued undisciplined presence of a known fornicator, etc.
So in conclusion, Paul's teaching regarding the head covering is just as applicable today to us as it was back then to them. The reasons still exist, therefore the expected response is still the same.
I notice Don is STILL going on about "where is the old testament command for the veil?" I honestly do not know why that is still being raised. The DISTINCTION between the old covenant congregational practice (ordinance) and the new covenant congregational practice (ordinance) was already discussed and made clear. This is essentially a liturgical issue, concerning praying and prophesying. Just as a change was made in the ordinances of worship concerning types of sacrifices, the order of the priesthood, and the focus of the Passover memorial meal, so too a change was made in the liturgical ordinance concerning the covering of the head during ministry and worship. That the new covenant congregation would have distinct ordinances of worship and liturgical conduct is only questioned by Jews and Judaizers, who believe any innovation (not sanctioned by the rabbis) is heretical. All Christians have ALWAYS affirmed that the new covenant liturgy is distinct from the old covenant liturgy, and therefore the specific worship practices of the two are distinct as well. There is some overlap, and similarities, and one is based on the other (since the new covenant worship is the spiritual substance of the old covenant types and shadows), but there are also distinctions and differences. The head covering is obviously one such area of distinction.
Again, since God can command something ANYWHERE in Scripture, then God can command something in 1 Corinthians 11, which is binding on us today. To suggest that "God does not command anything in 1 Cor 11 BECAUSE we see no such command in the old testament" is to beg the question, it is circular reasoning. There is no such requirement for any command of God in 1 Cor 11, that is, there is no requirement that God command something in the old testament in order for Him to command that thing in 1 Cor 11, nor is the lack of an old testament duplication of the teaching in 1 Cor 11 a proof or evidence that 1 Cor 11 contains no command.
|
Quote:
it seems that Don is asserting that Paul is on the one hand instructing the Corinthians to practice the veiling of women while they are praying or prophesying, but on the other hand he is not 'commanding" anything, therefore there is no obligation being imposed upon the Christian in 1 Cor 11.
|
Agreed, this is how I see it. And why not commanded? Because it is out of sync with the only Word of God Paul possesses, the OT. If Paul commands co/unco, he is the first to do so. But why should Paul be thought to be the first to command co/unco, when it was 'established' in the Beginning?
...in 2/3
|

12-07-2024, 09:56 AM
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 546
|
|
Re: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.
PART 2/3
Quote:
Because if it didn't matter, then why bring it up in the first place?
|
Because it is proper as a Christian's testimony in society. Timothy, the Jew/gentile, is circumcized, not because he was commanded to or because circumcision has value as a Christian doctrine, but the doing of this Jewish tradition would prevent Jews stumbling over this in his testimony of Jesus. Also, plz read 1Co 7: 1-6 and see where he instructs but not commands. Then compare this with v10. And then v12 where Paul instructs, yet not the Lord. Does Paul command in v12 but not the Lord? Not likely - he instructs as a wise man, hoping they will follow, but not by way of command. And then v25, where he instructs but not commands. (While you are in ch7, look at v17-24, where he tells them to remain in the social position they were saved in. Could this then not also include the customs they were saved in? Perhaps.) Also, Jesus has Peter to pay the Temple tax for Peter and he, which he as the Sanctifier/Owner of the Temple should not be required to pay. This Temple tax example, though a command for the Jew and not a custom, does not fit perfectly as example.
Quote:
Also, in reading 1 Corinthians 11, it sure seems like Paul is establishing what can be called "universal truths". That is, Paul establishes as true certain things, that were true then, and are true today. They were true in Corinth, and they are true in Dallas, and everywhere else.
|
Sure, this can be seen to be the case. And why does someone who believes a woman's cover is only for the worship times mention 'universal truths', which might apply to all times of the week?
Quote:
This was true then, it is true now. It was true there, and it is true here.
|
And this principle you cite is why I have said that if Paul commands the veil for the NT, that it would also have been commanded for the Beginning, Conscience time, the times of the Law. If true for one time by command then it should be true for all times by command. And it isn't seen true for the first 4050 yrs by command and shouldn't be seen true for the NT by command, either.
Quote:
This is a conclusion he draws from the previous truth. The condition is stated in verse 3, and the conclusion that results from the condition is stated in verses 4 and 5. The condition results necessarily in the conclusion. In Corinth in the first century, the condition was true, therefore the conclusion was true. Guess what? The condition is still true today, even in Texas. Therefore the conclusion is likewise true. That is to say, since the head of every man is still Christ, and the head of the woman is still the man, and the head of Christ is still God, then it follows that every man praying or prophesying with his head covered still dishonours his head, and every woman praying or prophesying uncovered still dishonours her head.
|
Sure, the conclusion of v4,5 is right, that it is built upon v3. But what has been concluded of v4,5 by the holders of the veil view (God commands the veil) is not the only possible conclusion to hold. You imply it does, when it shouldn't be thought so. Other scripturally derived conclusions have been seen, namely uncut long and instincts views. The one which should be the most logical to hold is the one with the least amount of holes. Both the veil and uncut long have huge holes, which should favour another view, possibly the instinct view.
Quote:
Paul's conclusions in verses 4 and 5 are asserted as being true. Paul does not attempt to "prove" them, he simply asserts them. Now, if we think of Paul as a mere man with no apostolic authority and not inspired by the Holy Ghost, then we can dismiss his conclusion as merely the unproven assertions of a nobody, with no authority. However, if we believe Paul to be an apostle, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, then his assertive conclusion is the assertion and conclusion of the Holy Ghost, and thus of God Almighty Himself.
|
There are also other possible assertions than the veil conclusion, being scripturally derived. That Paul does not take upon himself to prove any assertion could be explained by the fact that he has close cultural affinity with the Co's. Without Paul's going into detail, he thinks they will know what he speaks of because it is commonly culturally known to both of them. Paul grew up in a city much like Co. They were both Roman regional capital cities. What was known to Paul was also known to the Co.
Quote:
Everything else in the apostolic teaching in 1 Cor 11 concerning head covering follows from this base. Since the base is still valid, then the instruction is still valid. It is unequivocally true that every man praying or prophesying today with his head covered dishonours his head, and every woman praying or prophesying today with her head uncovered dishonours her head.
|
But what is not proved by this assertion using correct deductive methods, is what exactly the cover is. Before us is 3 views. Which of them are founded most securely on OT scripture and scriptural principles, and good reasoning? As I have repeatedly asked, where are the OT commands for a veil or for uncut hair? They don't exist. And why not when logic says they should be there, The instinct view refers to instincts which both life and OT scripture show as existing and true. Thus it is the most-scriptural one of the 3. The one which is most-scriptural should be seen as the one which carries the greatest weight, when discussing scripture topics.
Reasoning tells us that the same commands should be seen throughout the beginning of scripture till the end. No commands are shown in the Beginning. What is known from the Beginning by reasoning abilities is that God expected but didn't command co/unco there. Reason says the same principle/method which is shown used by the Lord in the Beginning, should carry through all of time, unless rescinded. There has been no indication that that which was shown by an expectation method has been rescinded. God still expects today that Man will show respect for the order of authority. He never commanded it at the Beginning and the same principle/method used there should prevail in the NT, unless superceded. 1Co11 is poor at showing this as superceded. God had not commanded at the First. Precedent set remains in place until superceded.
Quote:
Paul does not state as the condition or basis of his doctrine any supposed "customs" or "instincts" or "traditions of the pagan Greek culture".
|
Very true. But logic and reasoning search for another way, when the ways derived from examination of the verses of 1Co11 lead to views with gaping holes. What we've always been instructed by scholars is, when forming doctrine, all of scripture must be called into mind. This is ignored by the veil and uncut view. Specifically, both ignore the fact that no commands for either view are found in the only scripture Paul holds in his hands. You've often stated that the first steps of a journey are the most important to get you to a desired destination. Building a 1Co11 doctrine correctly cannot ignore the first steps shown in 4000 yrs of scriptural history that Paul holds in his hands. Doing so would mislead and produce a warped doctrine. The instincts view starts its view at the moment A&E are created, continues with Ge3.16, follows by 2Sa15.30 which is an example of among others. The veil and uncut long view start with 1Co11 and then look for support in the OT, distorting what is seen there to make it fit conclusions drawn from 1Co11 first made without OT support. (For example, 1) the uncut long view states that Nazarites are given special permission to disobey - this is distorting the commands - what is said to be commands of God seen in 1Co11. Men/women Nazarites are said to be permitted to have long hair/cut hair, respectively; contrary to what they believe God commands in 1Co11. 2) The veil view says the priest is said to shame a woman by removing her covering, at the trial of jealousy of a suspected adulterous wife. God had never commanded a woman to have a veil and thus it is not possible to shame her thus, unless the veil is held as a custom. Why would guilt be shown presumed by such shaming, as presumed by just people before the trial is started/completed? This is also distorting the OT to wrongly find support-of what is wrongly said of 1Co11.) Thus, the NT is the foundation for what is believed the OT should be saying, when it shows otherwise without the distortion. Logic tells us that the foundation of the NT has always been the OT. The foundation that the OT lays for 1Co11 is : God has not commanded. That is what 1Co11 doctrine should correctly build on.
Quote:
Rather, the basis for his doctrine is the assertion in verse 3 concerning a divinely ordained hierarchy of headship. Since a God-ordained hierarchy of headship is not dependent on any social culture, but instead flows from the will of God Himself for His people, then Paul's teaching is not to be viewed as him simply affirming a continuation of a pagan Greek cultural practice,
|
Yet this 'affirming a continuation of a pagan Greek cultural practice' is what is actually seen in light of the fact that the OT hasn't ever commanded either uncut hair or the veil. It may then be correct to question why the Lord/Paul would ask for a continuation of the Gk practises of veil/long hair.
...in 3/3
|

12-07-2024, 01:13 PM
|
 |
Unvaxxed Pureblood
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,917
|
|
Re: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
As stated before times, your logic is flawless when put together and applied to the veil view. It fits well. Yet it should be amended or discarded and what is seen in the Beginning used as a foundational starting point. Why? 1. God never commanded respect for the order of authority at the Beginning (nor for the Age of Conscience nor for the period of the Law). Not using what is seen in the Beginning as the foundation stone leads to accepting views like the veil view. The veil view ignores the law of Firsts. Whatever comes first is the foundation for what follows. Whatever is first is truth, which all other are compared to. To apply the First principle with an example shows the start of creation with no command for either the veil view or the uncut long view. A change takes place after the Fall, called the Age of Conscience. What was built there in regard to respect for God's order of authority follows the precedent set in the Beginning. There is no command found. Ditto for the period of the Law. Not until 1Co11 is misinterpreted do we see a variation from the principle set at the Beginning. There, God expected Man to show respect for his order of authority but not by command. It was inconceivable that Man would not show respect when God's rationality had been placed in Man when made in his image. Man knew by his rational mind alone, without need of a command, that he should respect God's order of authority. Man needed no command, yet knew what they should do. ...
If God expects women today to reverence with a veil then God should be seen to expect all women of all times to reverence him by a veil. Not to do so would be to show God showing respect of persons, which he doesn't do. Respect for God's order of authority was 'established' the moment A&E were created, and it had nothing to do with any covenant Man may live in. It existed before any covenant was established and thus exists outside of covenants or the times the covenants are active. Thus it can't be just a NT thing. Whatever it is must exist uniformally for all times.
|
Your reasoning is that nothing can be commanded unless it was commanded to Adam and Eve. Yet, nothing was commanded them except to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, according to your reasoning, nothing can be seen as a command except to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
When Moses declared that the Lord had commanded sacrifice was to be offered nowhere except at the place that God specified (at the Tabernacle), you would be there shouting "Not so! For such a command was never found in the Beginning! If God expects people to honor Him by only sacrificing at the Tabernacle, then He expects that at all times, including the Beginning with Adam and Eve. Yet there is no such command! Therefore Moses does err and there is no requirement to sacrifice only at the Tabernacle. In fact, Adam and Eve were never commanded to sacrifice at all! Therefore all these sacrifices are just voluntary, and not commanded. If you don't want to, don't make a fuss over it. Because it was not seen to be commanded in The Beginning (tm) it cannot be commanded now!"
At which point you would have been stoned to death for blasphemy and leading people away from God.
|

12-07-2024, 01:17 PM
|
 |
Unvaxxed Pureblood
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,917
|
|
Re: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.
So from this we see that Don does not in fact believe that God can command something anywhere in Scripture. Instead, Don believes God can only command something anywhere in Scripture IF it was commanded in the Beginning with Adam and Eve. Therefore, any command in Scripture not found being given to Adam and Eve is no command at all.
And so Don overthrows everything in the Bible after Genesis 3. According to Don's theology, man shall live by every word of God in Genesis 1-3 and not by anything else.
He will of course protest that this is a mischaracterisation of his position and belief, but it is the logical conclusion of his statements. Hear him above, as he says "there can be no command for a veil or uncut hair for a woman in 1 Cor 11 because no such command is seen to be given to Adam and Eve." Ergo, there can be no command in Scripture unless it was first given to Adam and Eve. Since we have no record of commands for Adam and Eve except to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that is all that can be commanded mankind, for all time. So, one may do as they will, there are no commands past Genesis 3 that anyone needs to worry about.
That having been established, I do not find any point in continuing this discussion, because I certainly do not accept the idea that any command in Scripture must be seen to have been given to Adam and Eve in order for it to be a valid command. I actually believe the whole Bible is the Word of God, and constitutes "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" by which we are to live. So, it seems Don and I follow two very different religions. As such, there is no point in debating with him what apostolic Christians should or should not be doing, anymore than I would be debating a Hindu about how often the Lord's Supper should be taken.
Last edited by Esaias; 12-07-2024 at 01:31 PM.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
| |
|