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

[Amanah]

Don, This is what your post looks like on my tablet:

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

God bless you, diakonos, for caring enough to vote, using 2 words.

diakonos has contributed to this thread in 9 posts. He uses approx 68 words doing so, averaging 8 words/post. Thus, he has not yet shown a great interest in this topic. Ho hum -- is his attitude.

Yet he wants to be seen by his last post, at the very least to be seen. He wants you to be as he is, because he takes time and effort to vote, so you can see how he is. He hopes you will be as he is. That's why he votes.

It is important to him to make somewhat of an appearance. It is important to him to show his vote, by all two words. Amazing effort!

The topic before us is about the symbol showing regard to God's order of authority. It is present on the head of Man of both sexes. The head is given attention each and every day by Man, as the center of Man. Not only is it given attention by the possessor of it, it is also given attention by all those persons around it. As such it receives no small amount of attention. Both it and the topic this is found in, are important to the Lord, deserving attention.

What diakonos has not yet done is provide in a post an argument on the topic,for what he believes or what others should not believe. He is silent. He could contribute something of value, beyond his valued vote of dissension of two words, but he doesn't.

He just is not passionate on this topic, at least not for more than 8 words/post.

How do you vote, reader?

Does your vote register with someone who is passionate or do you vote for someone who shows no passion? Is your church attendance with a church/Pastor who is passionate presenting the Word or are you lulled to spiritual sleep by a preacher who doesn't care enough to be passionate?

Don't be impassionate with God's Word or about any topic in God's Word which is an in-your-face-everyday topic as a Christian. Don't be a diakonos, who isn't seen as passionate.Why does he come here to vote, if he isn't passionate on the subject. He shows his lazyiness, thinking he will sway you with two words. Most need more than two words, diakonos. Love God with the whole heart, mind, soul, strength -- passionately.

Don, you are an ecclesiastical nut job.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don, This is what your post looks like:

Every time I point out that an individual is kooky. They always do something to confirm my observation. Don is an odd one for sure.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don, This is what your post looks like on my tablet:

Amanah, thx for that.

What you've posted is not visible to me either. I have no explanation as to why that might happen.

I have done everything I usually do in other postings for that posting. Can you see the message in post 462? It is clearly seen on my screen in that post.

Keep me posted. -Don

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Amanah, thx for that.

What you've posted is not visible to me either. I have no explanation as to why that might happen.

I have done everything I usually do in other postings for that posting. Can you see the message in post 462? It is clearly seen on my screen in that post.

Keep me posted. -Don

Dude, just post normal. Use the default font, color, and size. No one is blind here and unable to read all the other posts. You used WHITE for your last post. Just post and stop trying to make the font larger or colored. We all know how to read. Maybe you should learn how to post properly. Properly.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Hard pass

The following is a repost of post 457. Some readers have said they find it unreadable, for reasons unknown to me:

God bless you, diakonos, for caring enough to vote, using 2 words.

diakonos has contributed to this thread in 9 posts. He uses approx 68 words doing so, averaging 8 words/post. Thus, he has not yet shown a great interest in this topic. Ho hum -- is his attitude.

Yet he wants to be seen by his last post, at the very least to be seen. He wants you to be as he is, because he takes time and effort to vote, so you can see how he is. He hopes you will be as he is. That's why he votes.

It is important to him to make somewhat of an appearance. It is important to him to show his vote, by all two words. Amazing effort!

The topic before us is about the symbol showing regard to God's order of authority. It is present on the head of Man of both sexes. The head is given attention each and every day by Man, as the center of Man. Not only is it given attention by the possessor of it, it is also given attention by all those persons around it. As such it receives no small amount of attention. Both it and the topic this is found in, are important to the Lord, deserving attention.

What diakonos has not yet done is provide in a post an argument on the topic,for what he believes or what others should not believe. He is silent. He could contribute something of value, beyond his valued vote of dissension of two words, but he doesn't.

He just is not passionate on this topic, at least not for more than 8 words/post.

How do you vote, reader?

Does your vote register with someone who is passionate or do you vote for someone who shows no passion? Is your church attendance with a church/Pastor who is passionate presenting the Word or are you lulled to spiritual sleep by a preacher who doesn't care enough to be passionate?

Don't be impassionate with God's Word or about any topic in God's Word which is an in-your-face-everyday topic as a Christian. Don't be a diakonos, who isn't seen as passionate.Why does he come here to vote, if he isn't passionate on the subject. He shows his lazyiness, thinking he will sway you with two words. Most need more than two words, diakonos. Love God with the whole heart, mind, soul, strength -- passionately.

[diakonos]

Dude, put down the catnip, seriously.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Dude, put down the catnip, seriously.

😅 almost like he should have opened with "Brothers and Sisters of the forum! I bring heavy words of ridicule and accusation against the heritic that dared grace my post with 2 words!"

Almost like hes arguing to an audience instead of addressing each as an individual.

This aint court.

Nobody is pleading a case before a judge.

We are all in this flesh experience knowing in part and prophesying in part and I promise you that ALL of us when we get "There" are gonna be so thankful for a merciful God that loved us despite how clueless we were.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Almost like hes arguing to an audience instead of addressing each as an individual.

This aint court.

Nobody is pleading a case before a judge.

All posters are readers, but not all readers are posters. Most understand that all readers sit in judgment of some sort, of the words of every post.

Many will wonder the reason why long-time posters with great experience make no efforts to post refutations of the iv, more than : 'you're crazy' or 'your formatting doesn't meet standards'.

They realize that the silence of the vastly experienced ones means 'no contesting what the opponent says can be made'.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=jediwill83;1619980] Part one of two.

I really dont care what any others think and I say that not with arrogance but with a steadfast certainty that I will search out my own salvation with fear and trembling

I like it! It sounds like you want to put Jesus first and Man second. I admire anyone with that response.

hair probably isnt the Hill Im gonna die on by a long shot because for me its not a fight to the death...however I feel it has a purpose dealing with shame and covenant.

Exactly. Agreed. I believe that it does not meet the threshold of being a fundamental doctrine that He6 talks about. It is not on the list.

The reason it is not there is because the early church did not see it as such, for reasons which are seen in my explanation of the iv. Its source is the God-given instincts of Man.

Yet, some Apostolics, treat it as if the Magna Carta. In the mind and actions of these it is a fundamental doctrine. It should not be treated as such. It needs to be shown and broadcast, that its true source shows it is not a command of God. Respect for God's order of authority has never been commanded.There are those Apostolics who preach it as if it was.

If shame and covenant are connected to how one sees oneself in relationship to Christ, could the prohibition of the expression of shame for men in this manner, be a stumbling block against walking in something with Biblical presidence?

You've mentioned Covenant. I assume to see that you believe that respect for the order of God's order of authority is part of Covenant. I do not agree.

The primary reason I do not agree is, Covenant Requirements are stated requirements. The initiator of the Covenant asks the acceptor of the Covenant if they will agree to specified conditions. If the Lord has not asked for it as a stipulation of Covenant, then none should say that it is part of it.

Looking at the Beginning we see two, A&E, who are in Covenant with the Lord. Nothing is stated there about showing respect for God's order of authority by symbols.

Yet, putting on our deductive reasoning hats, it should be assumed that they are expected to ( and that outside of Covenant when it hasn't been asked for).

All of humanity should expected to, if any are. When not at that time commanded, it is seen as coming out of an unstated expectation, similar to the uncommanded expectation that A&E would love God. God neither commands love, nor commands the need to respect his order of authority. Yet, both are expected. They are expected of all by deductive reasoning abilities, not command.

It is inconceivable to think that A&E would not be expected to love God. He has been so good to them. This goodness demands a reciprocation of love. Doing so is how God designed Man to be. He expects things of us that aren't commanded. God does not command A&E to love him. He expects them to. And we too think all others should love him too, because our reasoning tells us so.

To love God and to show respect to his order of authority are principles all should follow, but this is not asked for by command. Not of A&E. Not of all those in the Age of Conscience. Not of those in the Age of the Law. (Except that those of the Law were commanded to love God.) To see God as demanding/commanding A&E to love God is in variance with the concept of free will. Love, and respect for God's order of authority come freely in those choosing to do so; by choice and not by command.

The Beginning does not show us a head covering command, but does show us a principle. If we refuse to do a principle, are we sinning? It may be stupid not to follow a principle, but not a sin when not commanded.

It is also inconceivable that Adam would not show respect for God (and his order of authority). Adam is in the presence of One who is vastly superior. God need not command Adam to respect him. It is obvious he should respect a superior without a command asking him to. God also need not command Adam to show regard to God's order of authority when it is obvious without command. God does not command the obvious. God had not commanded Adam to obey him, except in only one regard -- the apple. The apple is placed to provide opportunity to obey or disobey God by choice, by free will. Without the apple there is no free will. It then becomes must do.

God also need not tell Eve she should show respect to the one she has been made for. Having been made for Adam (purposed for Adam) it is obvious she should show regard to her purpose -- the one she is made for. God need not command what is obvious.

God need not command that which deductive reasoning shows. It would be redundant. And God does not command A&E to regard his creation order of authority. Neither they, nor those in the Age of Conscience. Nor those in the Age of the Law. Because it is an unstated principle which does not need commanding. It is obvious to do it without command.

After 4000 years of Man's history with Man living by the principle that they should show respect for God's order of authority by symbols, what need would there be to make a change and then command its keeping in the NT. Could he, if he so chose to? Of course. The question is, did he? Does 1Co11 show a command to show respect to God's order of authority for the NT?

Does God now include in NT Covenant that which has existed for 4000 years outside of Covenant? What rational would indicate this would be done?

Because some say he does, they then say of the Lord and his relationship with A&E, that he commanded the keeping-of-respect-with-symbols, and the command wasn't ever recorded. They thus say that it is part of their Covenant but not ever recorded. This flies in the face of reason. Reason says that if some important things are recorded, then all important things would have been recorded. The record does not show all important things were recorded. It does not show a record of a command for symbols regarding coverings. They didn't record it because it didn't exist.

What Paul says in Ro5.13 is that there was no law before the Law. The one law given in the Garden was annulled when it was made impossible to reenter. Had God commanded A&E to keep a head-cover symbol, then it would be a law which Paul says didn't exist. We are left to choose who to believe. Ro5.13 or those who want to add something which isn't there.

Doing this shows an attempt to make the OT say what they think it should say, contrary to what it actually shows. It shows 4000 years without a stated command to regard God by head covering symbols. (Did not those in this 4000 year time period need to show regard to God's order? Of course! And those that did, did so without a command. What then is the source which motivates this regarding? It is not law which does not exist.) What is it that leads to the seeming necessity to make God say what he clearly didn't? Saying what was said in these last 3 paragraphs does not yet answer the question, 'did God change his ways and command this regard for the NT?'

The attempts to make the OT say what it doesn't, didn't stop there. I will only show one other example of this, though there are more.

The Nazirite is said, by these who want the OT to say what it doesn't, to be allowed to do that which is sinful in others. It is believed by them that manly long hair is sinful. Those Nazirites with long vows would end with long hair, because the Nazirite command is 'do not cut the hair'. Thus, these then say that God allows the Nazirite to do what is sinful for common folk, just because Nazirite's are special.

And this 'special people' idea doesn't only affect the male. The Nazirite is commanded to shave the hair at the end of the vow. Female Nazirites are commanded to shave the hair. Those who believe female cutting of hair is sinful, then show they believe the Nazarites are given special permission to sin to obey God's command. Female Nazirites thus are allowed to do that which is sin for common people, according to this view. They have special privileges to sin because they are special. No one should hold a view like this.

Because 1Co11 is interpreted outside of consideration for the OT in this interpreting, it leads those who misinterpret it to make the OT say things they shouldn't say. It shouldn't be said that special people are given privilege to sin, allowing for them that which is disallowed in others. As Esaias has said previously, one mistake leads to another. Start out wrong and other wrongs fall in place behind the first.

But this does not yet answer the question 'does the NT command the keeping of a head symbol?'

To answer the question, all the facts of both the OT and NT on this subject must be taken into consideration, including the events in Corinth current to the time of writing of 1Co11.

I've already restated in this post many things I've said before in this thread. If you don't already know my answer to the question, then I invite you to read through the thread from the start, or read my commentary on 1Co11. The link to the commentary is in post 1.

Continued in Part two.