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

[donfriesen1]

It is illogical to say that 1Co11

commands the keeping of the veil as the symbol to show respect

to God's order of authority. Why? Because the veil is a human

invention. This can be said because the 4050 years before the

writing of 1Co11 shows no commands for the keeping of the veil.

It is illogical to think that A&E were not expected to show respect

to God's order of authority and to do so with symbols indicating it.

All people of all time should be expected to.



Had God wanted to command the veil, then the logical place for it

was right at the Beginning - with the first humans, who would

have been expected to show respect to God's order of authority.

He didn't command it there. It is illogical to think that any

humans after A&E would not be expected to show respect to

God's order of authority, doing so with symbols. Yet, in all the

years after A&E, we see no commands for the keeping of the veil,

unless 1Co11 is seen as commanding it. It would be illogical that

only those humans after 1Co11 would be expected to show

respect to God's order of authority by symbols.



Those who closely examine 1Co11, see Paul mentioning the veil.

Those Apostolics who say v5-7,13 refer to hair as the head-cover,

need to trust the lexicographer who say the Gk words translated

as (un)cover(ed) refer to the veil. It is their everyday word for the

veil. Those who say that 1Co11 commands the keeping of the veil

as the symbol, need to align their views with Paul's view of the

OT. He reads the OT and would not command what he

doesn't/can't see commanded there. Can you? He does refer to

the veil but it is illogical to say he commands it. It is only a social

custom, which Christians in a veiling society should comply with

to show they aren't societal rebels. If it is said that Paul speaks

from revelation in commanding the veil, then why does he refer to

the Beginning (which shows no veil) as the base for his thoughts.

That he does shows he doesn't speak from revelation. It is

wrongly said he commands the veil.




Paul does speak of veils, but should be seen to refer to its practice

as the proper response to social customs, but not as commands.

This is the most logical explanation of what is seen in both 1Co11

and the OT, which are without commands for veils when Paul is

seen referring to the keeping of a social custom. (Those who say

Paul commands the veil, focus on one portion of the Bible. We are

constantly told, when formulating doctrine, to examine the whole

Bible, not just a portion. Why don't those who believe that Paul

commands the veil also do so?) If Paul commands the veil, then

he is the only writer of all 66 books doing so. 1Co11 is then the

only place that commands it. This tends to show it as not as a

Biblical command.



If you are one who has long held the view that Paul commands

the veil, then you would be among those who find change hard to

do. It would be hard to say something long believed as truth is

not really truth. But it is the right thing to do in face of good logic

and Biblical facts.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It is illogical to say that 1Co11

commands the keeping of the veil as the symbol to show respect

to God's order of authority. Why? Because the veil is a human

The veil is a human?

Don, you need attention, but sadly you won’t find it here.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

See post 342 for a compilation of Evangelist Benincasa's posts.



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.

Don, I make no attempt to assassinate your character. You have taken on that endeavor all by yourself.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It is illogical to say that 1Co11

commands the keeping of the veil as the symbol to show respect

to God's order of authority. Why? Because the veil is a human

invention. This can be said because the 4050 years before the

writing of 1Co11 shows no commands for the keeping of the veil.

It is illogical to think that A&E were not expected to show respect

to God's order of authority and to do so with symbols indicating it.

All people of all time should be expected to.



Had God wanted to command the veil, then the logical place for it

was right at the Beginning - with the first humans, who would

have been expected to show respect to God's order of authority.

He didn't command it there. It is illogical to think that any

humans after A&E would not be expected to show respect to

God's order of authority, doing so with symbols. Yet, in all the

years after A&E, we see no commands for the keeping of the veil,

unless 1Co11 is seen as commanding it. It would be illogical that

only those humans after 1Co11 would be expected to show

respect to God's order of authority by symbols.



Those who closely examine 1Co11, see Paul mentioning the veil.

Those Apostolics who say v5-7,13 refer to hair as the head-cover,

need to trust the lexicographer who say the Gk words translated

as (un)cover(ed) refer to the veil. It is their everyday word for the

veil. Those who say that 1Co11 commands the keeping of the veil

as the symbol, need to align their views with Paul's view of the

OT. He reads the OT and would not command what he

doesn't/can't see commanded there. Can you? He does refer to

the veil but it is illogical to say he commands it. It is only a social

custom, which Christians in a veiling society should comply with

to show they aren't societal rebels. If it is said that Paul speaks

from revelation in commanding the veil, then why does he refer to

the Beginning (which shows no veil) as the base for his thoughts.

That he does shows he doesn't speak from revelation. It is

wrongly said he commands the veil.




Paul does speak of veils, but should be seen to refer to its practice

as the proper response to social customs, but not as commands.

This is the most logical explanation of what is seen in both 1Co11

and the OT, which are without commands for veils when Paul is

seen referring to the keeping of a social custom. (Those who say

Paul commands the veil, focus on one portion of the Bible. We are

constantly told, when formulating doctrine, to examine the whole

Bible, not just a portion. Why don't those who believe that Paul

commands the veil also do so?) If Paul commands the veil, then

he is the only writer of all 66 books doing so. 1Co11 is then the

only place that commands it. This tends to show it as not as a

Biblical command.



If you are one who has long held the view that Paul commands

the veil, then you would be among those who find change hard to

do. It would be hard to say something long believed as truth is

not really truth. But it is the right thing to do in face of good logic

and Biblical facts.

Don, why don't we start a thread on how you can make friends in your neighborhood?

[jediwill83]

Don, you should speak to inform or persuade someone of the merits of your ideas. Honestly this whole thread is like some kind of long drawn out unfruitful Hatfield and McCoy feud where the plot is pointlessly lost and that is obviously a failure of the lack of spiritual vision and theological understanding on my part and for that I am sorry. Im sure there was a good point there somewhere and maybe with enough prayer and fasting, the Lord will be kind and gracious enough to open the heavy seals of my understanding.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Don.

Welcome back, Jediwill83.

What you say about Hatfield/McCoy is partially true. Also, do not

despair and yet give up in a search for truth. Persistence pays great

rewards -- Truth with a capital T. Yummy! It is a wonderful

experience which many Oneness believers who were former

Trinitarians attest to, savouring it for life, revisiting it often to re-tell

of its inception and verity.



Please consider the following in your efforts to discern that elusive

good point you speak of. May the Force (of the Holy Ghost) give you

discernment.



The OT scriptures, those both before and after the giving of the Law

at Sinai, contain neither a command to show respect for God's order

of authority, nor to do so with symbols. Yet Paul in 1Co11 refers to

the OT as the base for his thoughts. How could he be referring to OT

thoughts from God when there are none seen on the topic, to refer

to? Discover the answer and you will find the source for Paul's 1Co11

thoughts.



It is illogical to think that God would only command some humans

and not all, to show respect to his order of authority by symbols.

That he didn't command for those before Paul becomes obvious when

the OT scriptures are read. If he did not command it there, for the

first 4050 years of Man's life on Earth, then he would not command it

for those following either. Therefore it should be concluded that what

he writes in 1Co11 are not commands but expectations.



Some may respond by saying that God has commanded, doing so

just for the NT times. They will say he has done so just because. But

why then, if he does so just because he wants to, does Paul make

reference to the OT scriptures? It would be unecessary to do

references to the OT, and only say God says so and we should then

obey. But consider that the OT is the foundation for the NT. NT truth

is built upon OT truth. This can't be said for the said command of

head coverings. Therefore, it should not be viewed as a command.



NT truth, of head coverings to show respect for God's order of

authority, should also be seen in the OT. When it isn't, then the most

probable answer for why not, is that Paul refers to an unseen and

unspoken principle. Paul/God do not command but reveal a principle

which would have been active: in the Beginning before the Fall; after

the Fall in the Age of Conscience which had no Law; during the Law

which contains no commands for it; during the NT, where Paul when

referring to it is misinterpreted as commanding something which

existed for 4050 years without a command as a principle. Paul refers

to a principle which has been active from the moment A&E were

created. It is illogical to think that A&E wouldn't be showing respect

for God's order of authority with symbols before the Fall.



Another example of a principle which the NT saint follows, but not as

command, is tithing. It was practised before the Law as a principle in

the Age of Conscience, then commanded in the Law, and is practised

in the NT, again by principle. It is wrong to say that God commands

tithing of the NT saint. Principles are not commands. They should be

followed because it is logically expected to do so and common sense

says we should. But when not, it is not a sin to do so, as it is not

commanded. Head coverings are said to be commanded and sinful

not to comply with, wrongly.



God did not force/command A&E to love him. Even a non-Jedi knows

this. God gives all free-will not to do so. Yet it is totally absurd to

think they should not do so, by principle. God did not command it but

it should be thought that he expected it, by principle.



Paul speaks of a principle in 1Co11. Of all the Bible writers, brilliant

Paul is the first and only one to ever do so. Even Jesus never

mentioned it.



Previous posters have not responded to any of my thoughts like

these. It may be so because the logic and truth are inescapable and

as such are irrefutable. Truth demands its acceptance and

incorporation into practises and into doctrines (The doctrine of tithing

is taught as a doctrine of principle. This should be done with head

coverings, yet is practised/preached as a command) as God-

followers, unless it is shown faulty. Posters have shied away from

attempts to do. If I'm seen as nuts, or without friends/Pastor (as

Evangelist Dominic Benincasa

would have you believe, without also providing any Bible

arguments to show the iv wrong. See post 342. He's AFF's self-

appointed Daddy who would want you to obey him just because he

says so. Hi, Daddy Dom. Siblings never let another sib assume the role of

Daddy unless the real Dad has said so. No one wanting to talk Bible wants

to get tangled with name

calling and saber rattling. I am one of those. It is an unwanted

reality of AFF when caused by someone taking the first step which

many feel must be responded to, resulting in the unpleasantness you

and all others have felt. Daddy Dom's unpleasantness was carried

over from a previous thread) doing so, then so be it.



It is time posters show agreement by saying so. What is done instead is only

saying 'Wrong', without showing how so or why. Posters will reply and say

'we provided replies which show you wrong'. But plz refer to post 305,

339,340,342 for a compilation of what they say proves the iv wrong.

See for yourself how their boasts of proving it wrong fall far short of their

claims. Efforts have been made by some on some points but they have not

yet tackled all points of the iv. Those things they say show it as wrong have

been responded to and refuted, without a comeback by them.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It is illogical to say that 1Co11

commands the keeping of the veil as the symbol to show respect

to God's order of authority. Why? Because the veil is a human

invention. This can be said because the 4050 years before the

writing of 1Co11 shows no commands for the keeping of the veil.

Only because I am bored...

It is illogical to say that John, the prophet of the Lord, commanded baptism (Luke 3:3) as a symbol to show repentance towards God. Why? Because baptism is a human invention. This can be said because the 4020 years before John's preaching shows no commands for the baptism of repentance.

That is Don's logic in operation. Now compare that to the scripture:

Luke 20:3-7 KJV
And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me: [4] The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? [5] And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not? [6] But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. [7] And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.

Too bad Don wasn't there to help them out, he could definitely have told them "Clearly it was from men, because (insert Don's logic here)".

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Only because I am bored...

Thank you, Esaias, for the critique of one of my important points.

It is appreciated. More to follow in response, at a later time.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

For what it is worth: I have long believed that “Doth not nature itself teach you” means what naturally takes place in the absence of unnatural or artificial interference.

If you observe nature in relation to hair of a man, versus hair of a woman, what might you notice? That a man will go bald at a rate much higher than a woman will. And as a result of this being normal, he will not be ashamed of his baldness. He may in fact even choose to shave his head and be bald. It is in fact quite common for men to do so.

Women? Not so much. They are typically ashamed of baldness. Some may do it but it is not common.

This is in my opinion what Paul means by nature itself teaching us. It is unnatural for a woman to be bald. It is not unnatural for a man to be bald.

For what it’s worth, I’ve never had anyone agree with me on this point that I can recall. So there’s that.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Welcome back, Jediwill83.

What you say about Hatfield/McCoy is partially true. Also, do not

despair and yet give up in a search for truth. Persistence pays great

rewards -- Truth with a capital T. Yummy! It is a wonderful

experience which many Oneness believers who were former

Trinitarians attest to, savouring it for life, revisiting it often to re-tell

of its inception and verity.



Please consider the following in your efforts to discern that elusive

good point you speak of. May the Force (of the Holy Ghost) give you

discernment.



The OT scriptures, those both before and after the giving of the Law

at Sinai, contain neither a command to show respect for God's order

of authority, nor to do so with symbols. Yet Paul in 1Co11 refers to

the OT as the base for his thoughts. How could he be referring to OT

thoughts from God when there are none seen on the topic, to refer

to? Discover the answer and you will find the source for Paul's 1Co11

thoughts.



It is illogical to think that God would only command some humans

and not all, to show respect to his order of authority by symbols.

That he didn't command for those before Paul becomes obvious when

the OT scriptures are read. If he did not command it there, for the

first 4050 years of Man's life on Earth, then he would not command it

for those following either. Therefore it should be concluded that what

he writes in 1Co11 are not commands but expectations.



Some may respond by saying that God has commanded, doing so

just for the NT times. They will say he has done so just because. But

why then, if he does so just because he wants to, does Paul make

reference to the OT scriptures? It would be unecessary to do

references to the OT, and only say God says so and we should then

obey. But consider that the OT is the foundation for the NT. NT truth

is built upon OT truth. This can't be said for the said command of

head coverings. Therefore, it should not be viewed as a command.



NT truth, of head coverings to show respect for God's order of

authority, should also be seen in the OT. When it isn't, then the most

probable answer for why not, is that Paul refers to an unseen and

unspoken principle. Paul/God do not command but reveal a principle

which would have been active: in the Beginning before the Fall; after

the Fall in the Age of Conscience which had no Law; during the Law

which contains no commands for it; during the NT, where Paul when

referring to it is misinterpreted as commanding something which

existed for 4050 years without a command as a principle. Paul refers

to a principle which has been active from the moment A&E were

created. It is illogical to think that A&E wouldn't be showing respect

for God's order of authority with symbols before the Fall.



Another example of a principle which the NT saint follows, but not as

command, is tithing. It was practised before the Law as a principle in

the Age of Conscience, then commanded in the Law, and is practised

in the NT, again by principle. It is wrong to say that God commands

tithing of the NT saint. Principles are not commands. They should be

followed because it is logically expected to do so and common sense

says we should. But when not, it is not a sin to do so, as it is not

commanded. Head coverings are said to be commanded and sinful

not to comply with, wrongly.



God did not force/command A&E to love him. Even a non-Jedi knows

this. God gives all free-will not to do so. Yet it is totally absurd to

think they should not do so, by principle. God did not command it but

it should be thought that he expected it, by principle.



Paul speaks of a principle in 1Co11. Of all the Bible writers, brilliant

Paul is the first and only one to ever do so. Even Jesus never

mentioned it.



Previous posters have not responded to any of my thoughts like

these. It may be so because the logic and truth are inescapable and

as such are irrefutable. Truth demands its acceptance and

incorporation into practises and into doctrines (The doctrine of tithing

is taught as a doctrine of principle. This should be done with head

coverings, yet is practised/preached as a command) as God-

followers, unless it is shown faulty. Posters have shied away from

attempts to do. If I'm seen as nuts, or without friends/Pastor (as

Evangelist Dominic Benincasa

would have you believe, without also providing any Bible

arguments to show the iv wrong. See post 342. He's AFF's self-

appointed Daddy who would want you to obey him just because he

says so. Hi, Daddy Dom. Siblings never let another sib assume the role of

Daddy unless the real Dad has said so. No one wanting to talk Bible wants

to get tangled with name

calling and saber rattling. I am one of those. It is an unwanted

reality of AFF when caused by someone taking the first step which

many feel must be responded to, resulting in the unpleasantness you

and all others have felt. Daddy Dom's unpleasantness was carried

over from a previous thread) doing so, then so be it.



It is time posters show agreement by saying so. What is done instead is only

saying 'Wrong', without showing how so or why. Posters will reply and say

'we provided replies which show you wrong'. But plz refer to post 305,

339,340,342 for a compilation of what they say proves the iv wrong.

See for yourself how their boasts of proving it wrong fall far short of their

claims. Efforts have been made by some on some points but they have not

yet tackled all points of the iv. Those things they say show it as wrong have

been responded to and refuted, without a comeback by them.

Don,

I don’t believe I’ve interacted with you very much. I did read about half of your writing and I had to stop due to time constraints. I have only made one post on this thread if my memory serves correctly. I don’t believe I have much to contribute that is of value. This is why I haven’t been active on this particular thread. I commend you for your efforts. I am typically of the school of thought that to discuss a subject is better than accepting the status quo or the conventional wisdom. I believe in the principle of iron sharpening iron.

However, I do have a thought for you. I hope you accept it at face value which is to help you and to edify the church, which is my goal. I don’t have any other axe to grind ( other than iron sharpening iron, see what I did there?)

The thought is that you have stated that no one has proven you wrong. Let me say in a kind way, if possible, that you have your protocol backwards. It is not incumbent on me or anyone else to prove you wrong. It is your responsibility to prove your point with scripture. Otherwise think of the reality of and the responsibility to us to go around proving every false doctrine to be false.

You are making a position based on silence, in my opinion. Prove your point with scripture, or admit that you can’t. Sometimes it’s best to leave the question be rather than provide an answer that is not true or that can’t be verified. There are some things that only the Father knows. You have a theory. I think you lack evidence sufficient to support it. I think that the same can be said for the other side of the debate. Them being wrong (possibly) does not equate to you being necessarily right. Or vice versa.

God bless you and your studies.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

You have a theory. I think you lack evidence sufficient to support it. I think that the same can be said for the other side of the debate.

How DARE you!