Head Coverings Predated Christianity

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Tithing wasn’t exclusive to the Hebrews, and the tribes of Israel. We have records in cuneiform ( early Bronze Age ) which speaks of the practice of tithing. Abraham who was late Bronze Age would’ve already have known the practice of “the nobility tithe.” Therefore Abraham didn’t get a gut feeling, or just come up with 10% pay off to the King of Salem. Therefore Abraham would have understood proper eastern etiquette concerning spoils of war, and kings and priests. No intuitive feeling employed. God designed man in His image, which man freely chose to blow off, and become his own god. The Bible states that man is wicked, Jeremiah 17:9. Therefore “natural mind” of man only leads him to ruin, not salvation. It’s not a natural thing to be “thankful” if it was you wouldn’t have to teach young children to say “thank you” when they receive something. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 8:7 that the natural mind of man is God’s enemy. That should be explanation enough to show that God isn’t depending on man to use his intuition to obey Him.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1
2) Abraham tithed. No command previous to the Law is recorded asking for this, which later would have prominence in Israel by command. That Abraham tithed can be attributed to what he learnt on his own as his rightful duty, by intuition, but not by command of God which we have no record of. Important things are usually recorded. Has God shown he plays along with Man's ways by commanding later that which Man's intuition has started? Did God design Man in such a way that Man's God-given intuition would naturally lead where it did - tithing from a thankful heart and not law? It is a natural thing to be thankful. It does not need a law of God to make this so. Did God turn what Abraham had learned by himself as a good thing, into a command of God? How could this ever be determined?

Good scholarly research here Dom. You blew my thought out of the water. Tithing wasn’t exclusive to the Hebrews, and the tribes of Israel. We have records in cuneiform ( early Bronze Age ) which speaks of the practice of tithing. Abraham who was late Bronze Age would’ve already have known the practice of “the nobility tithe.” Therefore Abraham didn’t get a gut feeling, or just come up with 10% pay off to the King of Salem. Therefore Abraham would have understood proper eastern etiquette concerning spoils of war, and kings and priests. No intuitive feeling employed. Does Dom here teach, does Dom want us to believe, that human intuition does not exist? We'll need clarification from him to determine with certainty.

Intuition. My definition: A feeling held indicating a needed action or value, as if by intellect but coming about/involving means of more than just the intellect. See my example, shown later.

What has not been refuted by mentioning what you did, Dom, is the idea that Abraham did it out of gratitude. Admittedly, saying Abraham tithed out of thankfulness is largely an educated guess. No one should say he definitely did it out of thankfulness, because we don't have needed info to say so. Yet, we compare our own experience with his, causing us to think he did it as we have done it.

Nor have you given indication that the originators, the very first pagan to tithe, did it as from a command of God. Right? The very first to demand or pay a tithe made it up themselves, unless they had been commanded by God. Whether it was a form of gov't taxation or giving for a priest's upkeep, it came out of the intuition that individuals living off the benefits of a society they are in, should help pay for it. This came by intuition, unless it came by a command of God.

Are you saying this command from God existed in pagans? Would it be correct to say that the first pagan to ask for a tithe did it as commanded by God? Not likely.

Dom, aren't you saying Abraham knowingly followed pagan practices in his sojourns? He may well have followed the example of pagan tithing, but not as doing it to an idol. He borrowed from pagan ideas to do to God. He tithed to the priest of the Most High God. Though I have no evidence to show for it, I believe Abraham was intimate with what Melchizedek believed in, not living far from him. He knew his tithe went to a kosher priest.

What later was commanded of God, tithing for the Jew in covenant, could then be said to copy that which pagans learnt by intuition, unless they were commanded by God. By your research you show that God was not the originator of tithing. Had God then incorporated into his Law that which Man had learnt, as per my assertion? You have provided me with evidence by your research, to support the points I made. God designed man in His image, which man freely chose to blow off, Does Dom indicate that 'blow off' means that Man has discarded the image of God, no longer in possession of it? and become his own god. The Bible states that man is wicked, Jeremiah 17:9. Therefore “natural mind” of man only leads him to ruin, not salvation. We need to stop and define what is meant by 'natural mind' or we may eventually be seen to be talking about separate things.

Multiple things can be used for this definition. 1. Jesus used his natural mind to read that the Beginning showed Adam and Eve as one flesh, not to be separated by the will of Man, ie, not divorced. Anyone else using their own natural mind could have made the same conclusion to interpret scripture. 2. Many great scientists, some of whom are atheists, have made astounding scientific discoveries with their God-given natural mind. 3. Paul defines the natural results coming from the mind of Man as the works of the flesh. Natural mind would then define Man's sinful/carnal nature.

Is your definition among these? By 'using the natural mind' do you mean to say the mind used to interpret scripture or the mind used for curiosity or the carnal mind which always leads to sin? It’s not a natural thing to be “thankful” if it was you wouldn’t have to teach young children to say “thank you” when they receive something. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 8:7 that the natural mind of man is God’s enemy. That should be explanation enough to show that God isn’t depending on man to use his intuition to obey Him. I don't agree and don't disagree entirely. It is very natural for those who are condemned by a guilty conscience to be thankful for grace which subsequently teaches them, and then to also present their bodies a living sacrifice, their reasonable service. It depends on which 'natural' a person uses to refer to. The word reasonable points to that which comes from using our faculties of thought. Also involved is our heart. Thus we are motivated by our natural mind to do right, presenting our bodies, and doing so from something which is not a command. It comes from within - intuition.

I am hurt/angered when someone lies to me. This is not just hurt to my mind. My mind tells me that others may be hurt if I lie to them. Thus, my intuitive abilities, heart and head, given to me by God, instruct me in righteousness.

But, can you point to one command of God before Sinai, where God instructs man not to lie? He had no need to. It was encoded in the image of God in Man. What Man knew by intuition was later bolstered by Law, then making sin exceedingly sinful.

Romans 7:13 But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. Does God have two categories of sin? 1. Sinful. 2. Exceedingly sinful. No.

If sin is the breaking of Law, it is, then to what law does 'sin before the law' refer to in our example about lying, since no written spoken law against lying existed before Sinai? It was, in my opinion and conclusion, (only a) sin against the image of God and not against an unwritten or unspoken law which didn't yet exist. When God gave Law at Sinai he made the sin, which had come before there was law against it, to then be 'exceedingly sinful' law, because it now was against not just the 'hidden' law of the image of God but also the new written/spoken Law. Double whammy wrong, and so, exceedingly. But this is one man's interpretation of the thoughts coming out of the word exceedingly. Why do you, Dom, think Paul speaks of exceedingly sinful if not for the reason I give? Isn't this the first time Paul uses a superlative, kath' hyperbolēn, to describe sin?

While you explain, also explain why Paul says there was 'no law', which caused God not to impute sin (which exists). Ro5.13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law If there is no law, which is Paul's conclusion, then how could there be sin because sin is the transgression of the law. Until the law sin was in the world, says Paul, and he says there is no law. Paul says there was sin in the time when he says there was no law. My conclusion: sin was against the image of God which was in Man.
[/SIZE][/COLOR]