Head Coverings Predated Christianity

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

)

....Part3/3

Veiling was culturally derived as a head symbol indicating fidelity to marriage. Fidelity to marriage is a good thing. Paul wants the Christian to continue with a sinless, good cultural practice which reflected good values the majority of Gk pagans practiced, doing so for a good testimony. He even asked Timothy to be circumcised for the same reasons.

Your explanation does not yet address why no statement/command from the Lord showed which head symbol Eve should use, nor which symbol all other OT people should use. How was she supposed to know about veiling before the invention of cloth? You do believe she practiced GOoA before the Fall, don't you? (Hmmm, I wonder if vs will respond to this? Hmmm. You listening?) That vs contrasts nakedness with veiling would lead us to the conclusion that in the times before the Fall when nakedness was Ok, that there would have been no need for GOoA at that time. By vs's reasoning GOoA started to exist only after nakedness appeared sinful, after the Fall. And to which time does Paul, the guy who vs says is inspired by the Spirit to speak of veiling, to which time does Paul in 1Co11 refer to, but to before the Fall, when Eve was created, naked. Vs, your dam has cracks in it. It's leaking.

That's what happens when you have man-made doctrine instead of God-made doctrine. Things don't fit together like they should if it was God-made. That's why the iv is standing against the water pressure from many giants of AFF. The vv and the ulv have holes, as I've pointed out in my commentary: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

The iv addresses the lack of an OT veiling command, offering an explanation which shows the symbol coming via natural God-given means - the nature he placed in Man, ie, instinctive impulsives. This shows GOoA as active with head symbols by these natural means, both before and after the Fall. Paul wrote them down for us, whether those commands were based in the Torah or not. 1 Corinthians is especially full of imperative statements Plz quote imperative statements concerning veiling. made by Paul that he describes as commands. A key text is 1 Corinthians 14:37:

Quote:
If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.

That's a good one, as used by you for your support. I've said that to demonstrate that I'm listening.

Also plz note the verse before that one: What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? It shows Paul connected to them by the Word. But plz, vs, if you are listening, is 1Co11 the only time Paul gives a command by the Spirit alone? Does he elsewhere give another command which does not have its roots in the OT Word? I've long believed that most everything seen in NT-truth is a carry-over from OT-truth. Oftentimes this is proved true by reading the OT after reading something in the NT. I cannot now provide a study detailing this. Therefore, you can take it or leave it, as true or not.

What I do know is Paul at times gives advice which he says is not from God. 1Co7.12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. This is seemingly contradictory to 1Co14.37 let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 1Co11 is just a few chapters over. It is not inconceivable then, to think he could do again give earthly advice, with head-coverings. Paul's teaching on the charismata of the Spirit is authoritative, i.e. it comes directly from the Lord Jesus. If Ac1.2 is your evidence for this, then I suggest that a lot of reading between the lines is being done. Is Ac1.2 authoritative? Yes, but quite short on details, right? I'd like to point out that the teaching referred to occurred before the Ascension, and Paul wasn't present. In light of that fact when Jesus teaches in person, what then does 'through the Holy Ghost' exactly mean? Anyone who would claim the gift of prophecy, or to be spiritual needs must recognize this reality. And yet, Paul has not based his teachings on any OT passage, apart from a reference to Isaiah 28:11 in 1 Corinthians 14:20. You make a good point, but saying what you said is not saying everything there is to say., Otherwise the entirety of his teachings, which he stipulates are commands from the Lord Jesus, are based in his revelation from Christ as per Acts 1:2. Ok, maybe this is true. But I had another theory about it. My uneducated guess: His education may have contributed to his understanding of Man. Ro12 mentions seven kinds of gifts. They are called Motivational Gifts or Functional Gifts or Service Gifts. He couples his education with in-field observations of people in the church, to categorize them into 7 areas. Ditto, with the spiritual gifts of the Holy Ghost, as per 1Co12.

I point to education and the Spirit because of one scholar's opinion: Paul had the equivalent of 4 Phds. Whether he had one or four, he was highly intelligent and highly educated. This, plus the help of the Spirit, led to observations of the Spirit's workings in Man, and to his categorizations of them into 9 separate units.

Can this be shown true with evidence? No more than any other attempt. Scripture does not give enough details.

Did the OT demonstrate Spiritual gifts? Yes, except for tongues and interpretation, if I'm not mistaken. The other 7 are not uniquely NT. Did Paul see the Spiritual Gifts at work in the OT and think up categories for them? Maybe. Therefore, Paul can issue binding statements upon the church without having to resort to the Tanakh, i.e. the Torah, the Nevi'im, or the Ketuvim. Perhaps you have other examples to share to strengthen your point? I'm not saying you are wrong to point to Ac1.2, you're not. I'd like to see more evidence that some things NT came only from the Spirit. When we have many, many indications of things seen in the NT also seen in the OT, it leads to believing all things NT have their source in the OT. God did not change when testaments changed.

(Are you paying attention, Don?) Yes, brother, I am hearing you quite well. But I do have hearing issues when any brother stuffs my ears with personal degradations. It is amazing how much my hearing diminishes then, in an instant. And this person is not usually you.

But I did hear accusations from you, which led me to ask for quotes leading you to give these accusations. And I didn't hear back. So, there's that. And a bunch of nasty things you also said about me, in what is supposed to be a Bible discussion forum.

Reader, do I reply to points vs makes? Have I skipped over any? Ask yourself why vs skips over, doesn't reply, to points I've made in other posts. You'll also notice me agreeing with someone elses good points.

Truth-seekers do not wish to be seen as making camps of opposition. Truth-seekers wish to see one camp of scripture readers trying to collectively figure out what God is saying in his complex Word. Those who use nasty accusations of the personality of fellow Apostolics portray they are forming camps of opposition. We against you. They want to be seen as standing for their camp regardless and not necessarily for the camp of truth. Truth-seekers want to discuss the Word with one camp in mind - not a you against me. All in truth. So, Dom and vs, why the nastiness? Where is the love of God in nastiness? Oh, silly me, I forgot. You're Apostolic and this gives you rights to set aside things. Like truth. I keep forgetting.