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

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Fat meat is still greasy and YES you should thoroughly chew your food when eating.

Don eats his steak very well done.

[donfriesen1]

Readers will notice that many regulars in AFF, the giants who long have posted and have great experience in the Word, do not present arguments from scripture or logic which disproves the iv.

The OP has compiled the extent of their arguments. See Post 305, 339, 340, 342 for this compilation, should any be interested. Check it out.

Had they arguments which could have disproved the iv, these would already been given -- long, long ago.

That they haven't yet, gives hints that the iv is irrefutable. As such it is like Truth.

Does this say that the iv is Truth, with a capital T?

Who will determine this, if not the giants of AFF. Yet they have pooh-poohed with great arguments of depth of thought, like: Nuts, wrong, you've said that before, use different font or colour. Any should be compelled by the depth of their arguments to reject the iv, as they have done.

The day will come, if it is indeed Truth, that they will say otherwise. Truth itself will see to it, that this is done. That is the way Truth does these things.

[donfriesen1]

PART 1 of 2.

The nature of the topic of this writing prevents the briefness which may lead to rejection because of incomplete presentation of arguments. Briefness sometimes leads to lack of clarity.

Providing scriptural views presenting truth, also highlighting error and inconsistencies in doctrine, should not result in anyone being labelled a divisive person, should it?

I may be sharing something of value. I write, as one wanting to share truth. It would not be right to keep it to myself, if it is truth. I find fault in what the majority of Apostolics hold in 1Co11-interpretation. When sharing truth I also expose the error in Apostolic interpretation.

In this link is a commentary I've written on 1Co11.2-16. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

The OT has many verses which show that people covered their heads when shamed. (The actual goal of covering the head is covering the face. Covering the head helps achieve this.) Because of the proliferation of verses, it provides an Biblical contextual definition of what covering the head in 1Co11.4 means. The held-by-majority view of v4 does not have such prolific support. It has little, if not none, in OT-command to support it.

⦁ 2Sam15.30 ...wept...his head covered...covered their heads...weeping
⦁ Es6.12 ...But Haman...mourning and with his head covered
⦁ 1Kg19.13 ...Elijah...wrapped his face in his mantle...entrance of the cave
⦁ Jer14.3,4 ...ashamed...covered their heads...they covered their heads
⦁ 2Sam19.4 ...covered his face, and the king cried out with a loud voice
⦁ Ps44.15 ...the shame of my face has covered me
⦁ Ps69.7 ...Shame has covered my face
⦁ Ps71.13 ...Let them be covered with reproach and dishonor
⦁ Ps89.45 ...You have covered him with shame
⦁ Ps109.29 ...with shame...cover themselves...as with a mantle
⦁ Jer51.51 ...Shame has covered our faces
⦁ Mic7.10 ...shame will cover her

Paul is an expert of the OT. As a rabbi, he had extensive training in it. It is believed by some that Paul may have been a member of the Sanhedrin or that he aspired to be. One writer says that qualifications of a member required the memorization of the Torah. (I do not have a scholarly source for confirmation. Take it or leave it as true.) If true, then Paul may have been one who had memorized it, which would bring great knowledge of its contents. Another writer says, because he was educated by Gamaliel, he ended with an equivalent of 4 PhD's. (Again, I do not have a scholarly source for reliability. Take it or leave it for truth.)

Whatever the extent of his knowledge, we see from his NT writings that he has great knowledge and understanding of all things OT. He would have been aware of the covering of shame, not only from scripture but potentially also by experience. Many people today also have had the experience of being ashamed or embarrassed. They may have done for themselves, or witnessed someone else, covering the face or head at these times. This is not limited to males. It is a human response. As such, it is part of the God-given nature of Man.

Therefore, when Paul says in 1Co11.4 that a covered man brings less glory to God, he should be seen applying the OT contextual definition of the shame-cover there.

Shamed people do not glorify their Creator as much as if they had lived without shameful experiences. It is not the covering of the head which lessens the glory of God. It is but a symbol of the event. The actions in any embarrassing event may reduce the glory of God, but not the symbol.

Elijah's actions in an event are a good example of this.

Jezebel threatened the man who had called fire from God. Yet the man who has such great power, runs. He hides in a cave. God meets him. He has not trusted his mighty God. He is embarrassed about it. He covers in shame. He has failed to bring God the glory he could have, had he faced Jezebel. Yet, he has not done anything sinful. He reduced the glory of God, without a sinful act.

A person may have a covered head for reasons other than shame, and not be reducing the glory of God thereby. A Man who is under a blanket, an umbrella, a tent, is covered; but should not be thought to reduce God's glory by this alone. It is Man's shame-acts which may reduce God's glory. A closer proximity to the head with a cover, ie long hair or a veil, does not necessarily increase the reduction of glory for God. The shameful events may do so, as with Elijah and David. The events may do so, depending on what happens in the event. Those ashamed of not finding water, Jer14, did not reduce the glory of God, though shame-covering.

Christians have long said that manly long hair is the cover which reduces God's glory. And to which OT verse, other than the NT 1Co11 v4 and v14, do they turn to for scriptural support? If Paul had been asked to quote an OT verse for support, which OT command would he quote? There is none to quote. The OT did not command short hair for men. It did not disallow long hair by command. And the NT does not yet exist for Paul to quote. Had Paul thought that long hair was sinful, what then is the source leading to the thought that it is so?

If Paul is understood to say long hair is sinful, where is the source for why he says it? It is not found in the OT.

The NT is not yet compiled/accredited when Paul writes. Thus, if Paul had then taught in a group setting, and had Q&A afterward, which OT verse would he quote to support the thought that long hair is sinful, had he said it and had been asked? The thought that long hair is disapproved/sinful has no OT support other than Absalom. And this man, before his rebellion, is thought to be the best looking guy in Israel. Israel does not think this because they have been commanded that long hair is disapproved/sinful. Where are the OT verses if thought so? This, along with the lack of any OT command against long hair, does not show long hair as sinful. Thus, this would not be Paul's view. Paul is all about the Word of God. Paul/1Co11 is misunderstood/misinterpreted by Apostolics. Paul would have gotten any of his views from the OT, which doesn't show it sinful.

On what then does Paul base the thought of long hair as sinful when it has no OT support? v4, 14 are not yet scripture to rely on for support, when he writes. Therefore, he would not teach that manly long hair is sinful. v4, 14 are misunderstood by those who use them to teach it as sinful. The totality of scripture does not support a view as sinful, that all in the NT should hold to. These 2 NT verses should not be viewed in isolation. Where are the other verses showing support, if it is wrong to think so? We are admonished by Bible scholars to read the whole Book to formulate doctrine, and not to use verses in isolation. Saying manly long hair is sinful uses v4, 14 in isolation. This is wrong practice.

Instead of showing manly long hair as sinful, OT verses show honourable, holy men with long hair, commanded by God to be so. (Yet, Christians say it is sinful, openly contradicting what OT scripture clearly shows! See the commentary for similar supporting thoughts. In-the-face opposing OT examples are set-aside by doctrine makers who say manly long hair is sinful.) Paul then would have seen the multiple OT long-haired holy men examples, along with the Nazirite commands, while also seeing that there are no other OT verses saying long hair is sinful. He thus, would not teach long hair as sinful if the OT did not.

What then, of v4 and 14?

v4 must then be understood to mean something other than long hair as sinful; seen so in the light of the context that the OT shows in the use of the shame-cover. The only Bible Paul has, the OT, did not otherwise indicate sinfulness. It indicates by many verses, the cover of shame. v4 should today be viewed in this light, because that is how Paul would have understood it.

v4 is misunderstood/misinterpreted by Apostolics, for those reasons. The thought that long hair is sinful lacks OT support, while the shame-view has many verses. It is logical to see Paul here referring to the cover-of-shame. Paul's love for the Word, along with his knowledge of life, would naturally lead him to refer to the cover-of-shame he has seen many places in the OT he loves, and also in those responses to shame he has seen in society.

PART 2 of 2 to follow.

[donfriesen1]

PART 2 of 2.

What then of v14? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? Clearly, it does not indicate long hair as favourable. It is a problem in the view that says long hair is not sinful.

Bible scholars offer advice when formulating doctrine. They say, that all the verses on a Bible topic should be read, compared to one another, for a consensus of what the Lord is trying to teach on the topic. If any verses are seemingly contradictory to the consensus, then an explanation or reconciling must be provided as to why they seem to contradict.

Would God contradict the OT in the NT? Would God say in the NT that long hair is sinful, if he did not in the OT? God can not speak contradictorily. Man can understand wrong and think to see a contradiction. v14 can be misunderstood. The interpretation of a sentence in the NT (v14), should be in agreement with what the OT shows. The OT, by both word and example, is contrary to Apostolic interpretation of v14.

If the OT, the only Word Paul has, does not convey the idea that long hair is sinful, then what of v14, which speaks negatively of manly long hair? What explanation can be given for this seemingly contradictory verse? It needs to be reconciled -- and reconciling will now be presented for consideration.

Because Man has an instinct leading them to cover the face/head when shamed, they then have a natural God-given aversion to any covering which reminds them of shame feelings. Having the similarity of the shame-cover in long hair, reminds men of shame feelings they avoid. They have a natural aversion to anything which reminds them of shame.

Men thus, especially men, having greater desires for respect of others, have a naturally-given aversion to long hair which may reduce the appearance of living for respect. This nature is what Paul speaks of in v14. Paul speaks of God-given feelings of Man's nature, not of OT Law of God which doesn't exist. These feels coming from Man's nature, which male Bible-interpreters themselves possess, which may subconsciously or otherwise contribute to the misinterpretation of v4, 14 as seeing Paul referring to long hair.

But what of the woman? She also has a naturally-given instinct to cover when ashamed. If she also has this covering-when-shamed-instinct, then why does she naturally desire adorning long hair which provides her a head-cover somewhat similar to the shame-cover? Would she not also have a natural aversion like men do?

The answer lies in competing instincts. When she has multiple instincts, one may prevail over another.

For example: people have a nature which avoids pain. Women ignore the coming pain when naturally desiring the baby whose birthing will bring much pain. Women consciously override one competing natural instinct to gain the other.

Thus, God-given instincts should not be seen to be rigid laws which must be followed each and every time. They are but general guides for what God generally desires in societal Man. The Nazarite Law shows God-given commands (longer vow-times resulting in manly long hair) which are contrary to: 1. God-given covering-when-shamed instincts; or 2. natural manly-aversion to long hair. (Pick one or pick both, as desired. Both are acceptable.) This example shows Nazirite commands which result in men with a covered-head-by-long-hair, being contrary to God-given human natural feelings (instincts). The example from Nazirites shows God's expectation that commands must be followed, while God-given instincts not necessarily so. A command overrides a God-given instinct. Nazirite Law shows God overriding his own instincts-given-guides. Instincts are not laws.

v14 should be understood (this only achieved by reading between the lines) to be referring to instincts.

It is natural for a man to live by the feels of instincts. He feels the long hair cover is 'wrong' because it feels like when shamed. (Having these feelings does not indicate that God thinks it is a sin.) If Paul thought that God thought manly long hair a sin, then he may have quoted/referred to a verse where God had indicated it, if he could. There is none to refer to. God had not done so, in the only Bible Paul has - the OT.

Instincts are not commands but God-given guides. Those who refuse their instinct or favour one instinct over another, do not sin, though they may be contrary to a majority-in-society who pay regard to the instinct.

Paul refers to God's instinct guides, not Law, in 1Co11. There are no, I repeat, no OT head covering commands, for either male or female, for him to refer to. OT men with long hair did not show disregard to God's order of authority by long hair, as is indicated by misinterpretation of 1Co11. It may be that Paul refers to instincts for both men and women in 1Co11. See my commentary for further thoughts on this.

Men who follow their natural God-given instincts will not desire long hair. Most OT men had short hair (Don't ask for proof of this. It may not exist.) Those OT men with long hair did not necessarily show disregard to God's order of authority doing so, for God had not OT-commanded against manly long hair. Any who had long hair only acted against their instincts, not against Law which did not exist. Those men with long hair may still have shown regard to God's order of authority, while with long hair. Having long hair does not exclude one from showing regard to God's order of authority or the Nazirite may be seen disregarding by God's own command!

Men today who have long hair do not sin. They only override one natural desire to favour another. They may give preference to the esteem of others (in their segment of society who admire long hair), which esteem all others desire of others in various ways. They want this esteem more than giving heed to their own natural aversion to not want a shame-cover. They too, as women do, override one natural desire to achieve another.

God gives instinct guides for good reason. As such, they should be followed. Societal life is better when most in it follow God-given guides. God both cares for his rules for society and for individual's rules. Sabbath Law was both for the benefit of society and the individual.

He also cares about the fact that shamed people bring less glory to God.

Seeing v4, 14 in instinct-light is coherent/logical, and in agreement with what is seen in the only scripture Paul has in his hand -- the OT. OT commands of God do not show long hair as being a dishonour which v14 refers to. If God did not OT-present long hair a dishonour, then Paul would not/does not present it as sinfully dishonourable but as societally dishonourable. If a majority in society follow a natural instinct for short hair, then those who do not, are seen negatively by them, opposing the standard set by the majority who feel it reminds them of shame.

Can the effects of instincts be definitively proved? Instincts are only known by the proofs of what are seen in actions of the majority. Other than this, how can instincts be proved to be. Only by such observation are their characteristics known. Yet still, most would say they exist. The dishonour Paul refers to in v14 is the dishonour of the majority, not God's, whose OT Word Paul reads, which does not show it a dishonour.

Looking at it in an instincts-way, provides a reasoned, logical, scriptural explanation of the facts, when seen viewed 1Co11 alongside the OT. 1Co11 must not be viewed without the OT alongside. Paul had nought but the OT for scripture.

While this view is much different from the long-held view that manly long hair is sinful, it nonetheless is a scriptural view. It apparently is an interpretation without inconsistencies. At the least, it provides explanations of inconsistencies not explained away by majority-held Apostolic interpretation. If you see inconsistencies in the instincts-view, then please voice them.

(Viewing long hair as sinful has difficulties/inconsistencies. One example: If God says long is sinful, he fails to define what long is so Man can surely know where the line is. Saying this exposes a weakness or error in Apostolic interpretation.)

If 'the majority-held Apostolic view of manly long hair as sinful' is shown suspicious/weak by the view herein presented, what then is hinted at in what is taught for the woman? It may also be suspect, coming from the same interpreters. Should it also be closely examined for misinterpretation?

When Truth knocks, the traditional-view hears it -- and may be rattled. A battle may ensue. Which will prevail?

If what is presented is ignored by leaders, what would motivate any such ignoring? (Apostolics are well acquainted with this ignoring, when sharing Jesus name baptism with Trinitarians, praying that ignoring not be practiced by the hearers. The same prayer is made by this presenter, for this presentation's acceptance.) What is presented is scripturally derived and rational in thought. Good leaders should apply scripturally-derived concepts in their leadership roles, rejecting views with inconsistencies. Or, they should show the wrong in the new view. Such should have been done in the early 1900's, when Jesus name baptism was re-discovered. Instead, the majority held to tradition.

Thus, you are challenged. It may be that it is Truth/God that challenges you. At the very least, it should be given thought and prayer.

I am Apostolic. My faith, in Jehovah who dwelt in flesh, and my obedience to Ac2.38, says I am. Denying majority-held Apostolic 1Co11 interpretation does not rob me of being Apostolic. 1Co11 does not define what an Apostolic is. It was written 20 years after the first appearance of the Apostolic faith. Those without 1Co11 for 20 years were no-less Apostolic without it.

[donfriesen1]

If the iv is not proved wrong, then it should be accepted. It is a logical, scriptural explanation of the facts seen in the Bible and in life.

Other views, such as uncut long hair and the veil view, have discrepancies which should call for their rejection and not their acceptance.

It may well be that those who reject the iv, reject Truth. This should not be done by those who claim to love Truth above all else. Those seen as Biblical seniors in AFF, with great experience in the scripture and life, have not shown convincingly that the iv is in error.

Like many things new, which have slow acceptance and later majority acceptance, time may be the factor dictating the iv's majority-acceptance.

[donfriesen1]

Part 1 of 2.

This post is about ESSENCE and 1Co11.

Imagine A&E with invisible bodies and assume they continue in life in this state. In this hypothetical situation, can you distinguish Adam from Eve? Not likely very easily.

Some might say they are indistinguishable when invisible. The point I'm trying to make is that A&E are equals in regards to the image of God. The image of God is part of the essence of what a human is. It is that which distinguishes humans from animals. It is sometimes said that your soul is the real you. Are humans exactly alike one another on the inside? Perhaps, in some ways.

Though humans differ in having different personalities and externals, they are equals in regard to being created in the image of God. The primary fundamental purpose of a human is to glorify their Creator. They are tasked with valuing/guarding this image, to not mar the image of their Creator by sinful behaviours, but glorifying him by godly living.

Not only is Man made in the image of God, they are the image of God. Are they then all exactly equal in this regard? I don't pretend to know the answer, because...though Man is the image of God, this image does not reflect the whole of what God is. God's image in Man does not reflect well his omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence. If Man's image of God is an incomplete representation, is it then possible that there may be variations of the image of God between individual humans? What evidence could be brought to bear?

Usually, what is required by God of one human applies equally to all, to both sexes. (This is an over-simplification of a complex topic. Plz be understanding of its limitations and the context it is presented in.) For example: The 10 Commandments and the Gospel apply equally, whether to the male or female. These requirements are blind to gender. Ga3:26,28 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus...there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Therefore, because they are equals (concerning what is the essence of their being), requirements of them should be seen to be fulfilled equally. For example, a faithfulness requirement (which is an essence-kind of requirement) to a spouse is fulfilled the same way in both of the couples. By not committing adultery. The fulfillment of essence requirements are manifested in actions. In this case, non-action.

Asking for proper regard to God's order of authority is a requirement aimed at the essence-part of Man, right? This requirement should be fulfilled in the same way by both A&E. Yet, with current majority-held understanding of 1Co11, these two who are equals in their essence, must show a difference in actions to properly fulfill the requirement. Is it right to expect so? (Plz disregard temporarily, that essence/heart matters are usually seen fulfilled through the total human -- spirit, soul, and body -- by actions; and not just by that part of Man which is their essence.)

Prayer, an essence requirement, is fulfilled by Man using the total of all parts, in an action. It is fulfilled equally by those who are essence equals, though differing in gender. The question before us is, does God require differing actions from equals in an essence requirement, in respect to showing regard to God's order of authority?

Imagine playing a baseball game. Both teams have male and female players. All the rules are the same for all players, except that males are required to run the bases counter-clockwise, while females run clock-wise. Most everyone would say that the same rules should apply equally for all players, when playing the same game. The current majority-held interpretation of 1Co11 shows players who are equals in the image of God having different rules for differing genders. Males regard/honour God while uncovered. Females regard/honour God while covered.

That different fulfillment actions are expected in an essence matter of equals, hints the interpretation held by the majority of Apostolics, the ulv, is suspect/flawed, because God usually asks for fulfillment of requirements of equals, by equal actions. This is called 'having respect of persons'. Concerning God's order of authority, regard to it is said (by the majority of Apostolics) to differ depending on the gender of those who are equals in their essence. Is this not respect of persons? Could God do so, asking for differing fulfillments, if he wanted to? Of course. The question is, would doing so be seen to be rational, in light that they are equals in essence? God usually operates within the bounds of rationality. Rational thought would say that the same rules apply equally to all in similar situations, or God is shown to be a respecter of persons.

Using the current majority-held understanding of 1Co11, to show regard to what is of an essence quality, is asking it to be fulfilled differently, using different actions, depending on the gender. Should not essence fulfillments be the same for each, as in the 10 Commandments and the Gospel? For these requirements, fulfillments are exactly the same, regardless of the sex.

If A&E are equals in essence, then why would fulfillment-actions of essence-requirements differ between them? Why would one of them dishonour God while uncovered and another dishonour God while uncovered? The requirement (regard for God's order of authority) is equally applicable to both, but the fulfillment action, according to majority Apostolic interpretation, differs, depending on the gender. Does this compute, when they are equals in their essence as the image of God?

Under the current majority-held misinterpretation of 1Co11, the male shows improper disregard by a covered head, while the female is showing proper regard by a covered head. This is showing an essence-requirement fulfilled unequally. If A&E are equals in essence, then shouldn't fulfillments be expressed equally?

Therefore, the Apostolic interpretation that says that male long hair is sinful, is suspect/flawed. Therefore, the Apostolic interpretation that female uncut hair is obedience to a requirement, is suspect/flawed. At their core, the conclusions of these interpretations are wrong because it asks for essence requirements to be expressed by different actions. These understandings show regard to an essence requirement to be fulfilled differently.

Part 2 of 2 to follow.

[donfriesen1]

Part 2 of 2.

While the things herein-said show an over-simplification of a complex subject, further study (see a link to my commentary in post1) will show this simplification is justified in this topic, to expose error.

The iv shows equal regard to the essence requirement by both male and female. Giving regard to God-given instincts (instincts are essence features) is shown for both males and females in the iv. Regard is expressed in the actions of the total Man, the same as most other heart/essence requirements of Man are expressed -- externally -- by actions. Usually, what is required by God is fulfilled equally in both male and female.

Some will point out that the outcomes of both the ulv and iv result in a differing action; making both views show an essence requirement fulfilled by an action differently according to gender. This is true. Have we come this far along the way just to see a logical premise disprove itself? Does this post's author discredit his own premise with his own conclusions? For...

...the iv shows males showing regard to a requirement by not acting shamefully (resulting in an action of not covering the head when not shamed). The female's action is in covering her head (with long hair) to show regard to her husband's likes for adorning hair. This is somewhat similar to the ulv, which shows males showing regard to a requirement with an uncovered-head (short hair) action. The female does so with a covered-head (uncut long hair) action.

Thus, both the ulv and the iv show fulfillments of requirements with actions differing by gender, contrary to the premise which stated those who are equal in essence should see essence requirements fulfilled equally. Can this be explained?

It could be said, under the iv, that the fulfillment of a requirement is to heed God-given impulses of an instinct, and not by a specific action. Alternatively, it could be said, under the ulv, that fulfillment is in regard to a command, and not by a specific action.

The ulv shows direct 'between God and Man' interaction. (God commands; Man obeys. Let's call this 'of a religious nature'.) The iv shows indirect interaction. (It shows interactions motivated by instincts and not commands, more so of a social nature than of a religious nature.) Both of these show Man regarding God's order of authority; just by different approaches. One is in religious commands; the other is following impulses of God-given instincts.

But, the ulv shouldn't really be in this discussion. The thought that God commands a regard to his order of authority does not exist. For, God had not commanded a covering requirement within the first 4000 yrs of Man's history in the OT. We today talk about it, that which shouldn't be in the discussion, because the majority of Apostolics misinterpret 1Co11. Talking about it has been forced into the discussion by a misinterpretation of 1Co11 by the majority. Instead, the Bible shows by correct interpretation, that God-given instincts provided a covering-impetus during this OT time period. What had worked for 4000 yrs in the OT by instincts, should be seen to be continuing in the same way in the NT. The NT should not be seen to be commanding.

The discussion of essence, in respect to the ulv, shouldn't be happening. It is false reasoning to compare the iv and the ulv in relation to essence. The conflicting conclusions are a moot conflict.

Remember what was said about it being a complex topic? Hence, the following.

When God made Man, he made them male and female. He could have made Man a hermaphrodite, but he didn't. And when God made Man, he also created them as individuals who were also to be social creatures. The humans who are designed with gender differences, are to live both as individuals and as in a society. This can lead to complications, such as the conflict of conclusions described earlier.

Desires of individuals do not always mesh with social expectations. Adjustments must be made to accomplish individual goals while also accomplishing social expectations. Also involved is knowledge of God, which involves religious goals. These three goals must mesh, sometimes competing.

Man wants to do their own thing without interference, as an individual. Social obligations force adjustments to individual goals to include recognition of anyone else affected by individual goals. I want my goats to graze on this hill to get fat. My neighbour wants the same. We then share the hill. The goats raised for milk, hair, and meat are primarily to supply family needs, but religious goals require sharing, taking away from that which would supply family needs. A blend is required to live the way God designed Man to be.

The regard to the order of God's authority must work within the framework of the social, individual, and religious nature of Man that was designed by God. All must be satisfied. What are essence features placed by God, instincts, works from within -- influencing all goals -- social, religious and individual. Giving Man instinctive impulses results in God accomplishing the design goals given in Man in these three areas. A shamed man may lose self-respect, the respect of his society, also not glorifying his God as if he had been shameless. Others in his society will be motivated by his experiences. This is a blend of the social, individual and religious. A woman with long hair, gaining the social affections of her man thereby, shows the Lord and others, she lives in alignment with her God-given creation purpose. This is also a blend of the religious, social and individual. Doing so may result in a harmonious society when those participating exert social influence on others to follow suit, living thereby for God's glory.

The main premise of this post, about both genders fulfilling essence requirements equally, is a good, solid premise. It is demonstrated in more than one way. The 10 Commandments and the Gospel, etc. The regard to God's order of authority requirement may be seen to be fulfilled equally, regardless of gender, by the giving of heed to instincts. That God had made Man male and female, with social, religious and individualistic goals complicates the fulfillment outcome in regard to God's order of authority for each gender, with resulting differing actions in the sexes. Had God not done so by a complex design involving social, individual and religious characteristics, then two-gendered Man might have fulfilled religious requirements in exactly the same way. The response is by each gender to an instinct. This response seen to be the same in each sex, though action outcomes differ because of the complexities of how God made Man.

Throughout this post the word 'requirement' has been used. This requirement is known by principle and not command. This is said because there is no written OT command requiring Man to show regard to God's order of authority. What Paul writes in 1Co11.3 he learned by deductive reasoning, not by reading a command. The requirement known by Man is from a principle known by deductive reasoning, not command.

[Esaias]

The apostle gave instructions on what men and women should do when praying and prophesying. The apostle gave reasons why his instructions should be followed. Those reasons did not include any mention of some "instinct view". The reasons that were given still apply today. Therefore Paul's instructions still apply today.

/thread

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The apostle gave instructions on what men and women should do when praying and prophesying. The apostle gave reasons why his instructions should be followed. Those reasons did not include any mention of some "instinct view". The reasons that were given still apply today. Therefore Paul's instructions still apply today.

/thread

Wouldn’t an “Instinct View” be antiChristian?

[donfriesen1]

.

Evang.Beninicasa replies in post 488, to Esaias' post 487.

Benincasa says:
" Wouldn’t an “Instinct View” be antiChristian?"

Esaias had said, Quote: Originally Posted by Esaias Post 487.
"The apostle gave instructions on what men and women should do when praying and prophesying. The apostle gave reasons why his instructions should be followed. Those reasons did not include any mention of some "instinct view". The reasons that were given still apply today. Therefore Paul's instructions still apply today. /thread"




donfriesen1 replies:
Benincasa (EB), is most often seen in this thread, replying to donfriesen1 by something relating to donfriesen1's character, and not by replying with an actual Biblical contradictory comment. He up to this point has kept his 1Co11-views pretty much hidden. This man, who is chock-full of Biblical and worldly knowledge, only does this!

Benincasa is here seen slipping from his usual form. He here in this post makes a comment which might be seen to be an actual comment of hermeneutic content. Has he forgotten that he usually only makes personal comments of me in this thread?

Someone near to him should check on our Evangelist, to see if a fever is making him delirious.




Readers will have already determined, by reading donfriesen1, that the iv is a Biblical Christian view.

Readers will also determine that EB again tries to sit in the seat of authority to determine what is or isn't Christian, according to the opinion he offers. Again, EB only offers opinion, doing so without supporting facts. What I'm wondering is, who has given him this place? Have fellow posters? Or is it a fever or ???

He again presents an opinion, doing so again without supporting facts, and expecting all to believe in him, just because.

Most AFF readers are a little more astute than just to believe someone without seeing supporting scripture or reasons from logic. But posters may not want to be seen crossing someone who is always high-fiving their views with a cute emoji, and also doing so without any supporting comment of substance. Is EB trying to buy other's favourable opinions of him with emoji's?

Oops, I've just borrowed a tactic from EB, by insinuating something without supporting facts, just by asking a question. Naughty me. Somebody slap me or check up on me. I may have a fever.

Perhaps EB has not expressed his 1Co11 opinion for fear that he will lose favourable opinions of others. What do you believe about 1Co11, EB?