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

[donfriesen1]

When Trinitarians are

shown the scriptural truths of Jesus name baptism

or the Oneness of God by Apostolics, often the

result is a turning of the back to truth, without

good reason. Truth-seekers denigrate those

Trinitarians who do so, because it is wrong to turn

away truth. Those Trinitarians doing so insult truth

and God when rejecting truth and not taking efforts

to disprove for self and others, the claims of the

Apostolics. Some try, others not. Apparently, the

actions of such Trinitarians is a human problem,

shown to be a human problem of all humans and is

not sectarian, when Oneness Apostolics do the

same thing when rejecting truth, without providing

scripture or evidence from reason for why it should

be rejected. Thus God's reactions to both the

Trinitarian and the Apostolic who reject truth, will

be the same. God values truth above everything

else, regardless of sectarian labels or claims those

may make.



Apostolics should accept that the iv is truth or

disprove it. Turning the back is not a morally

acceptable response when truth is revealed.



It is not strange that those posters who have made

weak attempts to prove the iv wrong, have failed to

be convincing. It is impossible to disprove truth

with the Bible, because the Bible is truth. Truth will

not be disproved with truth.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

When Trinitarians are

shown the scriptural truths of Jesus name baptism

or the Oneness of God by Apostolics, often the

result is a turning of the back to truth, without

good reason. Truth-seekers denigrate those

Trinitarians who do so, because it is wrong to turn

away truth. Those Trinitarians doing so insult truth

and God when rejecting truth and not taking efforts

to disprove for self and others, the claims of the

Apostolics. Some try, others not. Apparently, the

actions of such Trinitarians is a human problem,

shown to be a human problem of all humans and is

not sectarian, when Oneness Apostolics do the

same thing when rejecting truth, without providing

scripture or evidence from reason for why it should

be rejected. Thus God's reactions to both the

Trinitarian and the Apostolic who reject truth, will

be the same. God values truth above everything

else, regardless of sectarian labels or claims those

may make.



Apostolics should accept that the iv is truth or

disprove it. Turning the back is not a morally

acceptable response when truth is revealed.



It is not strange that those posters who have made

weak attempts to prove the iv wrong, have failed to

be convincing. It is impossible to disprove truth

with the Bible, because the Bible is truth. Truth will

not be disproved with truth.

Don, you are a Trinitarian?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, what do you think about William Branham?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

When Trinitarians are

shown the scriptural truths of Jesus name baptism

or the Oneness of God by Apostolics, often the

result is a turning of the back to truth, without

good reason. Truth-seekers denigrate those

Trinitarians who do so, because it is wrong to turn

away truth. Those Trinitarians doing so insult truth

and God when rejecting truth and not taking efforts

to disprove for self and others, the claims of the

Apostolics. Some try, others not. Apparently, the

actions of such Trinitarians is a human problem,

shown to be a human problem of all humans and is

not sectarian, when Oneness Apostolics do the

same thing when rejecting truth, without providing

scripture or evidence from reason for why it should

be rejected. Thus God's reactions to both the

Trinitarian and the Apostolic who reject truth, will

be the same. God values truth above everything

else, regardless of sectarian labels or claims those

may make.



Apostolics should accept that the iv is truth or

disprove it. Turning the back is not a morally

acceptable response when truth is revealed.



It is not strange that those posters who have made

weak attempts to prove the iv wrong, have failed to

be convincing. It is impossible to disprove truth

with the Bible, because the Bible is truth. Truth will

not be disproved with truth.

Brother Don,

You have it wrong. We have no obligation to prove you wrong. It is instead your duty to prove your point.

It seems to me that you have a theory. You have a hypothetical argument. You have not provided anything but an hypothesis. And then you put the burden on us to prove you’re wrong?

That’s not how it works. Bring the receipts! Provide scripture. Give us something to believe. And it can’t be that the opposite view is not true. Because it is quite possible that neither view is true. And if that were the case, both views would be wrong.

Prove that your view is truth. I’m waiting. But don’t assume that you’re right because you believe someone else is wrong. It’s possible to believe in oneness and be wrong (to use your analogy) and on the other hand to believe in the trinity and be wrong.

For instance, I believe that the tithe doctrine, believed by oneness Pentecostals and trinitarian Pentecostals to be false on many different counts. So I provide scripture that verifies my position. I don’t put the onus on others to prove me wrong. I provide scripture that is truth and point out where it conflicts with the doctrine taught by the church.

I invite you to do the same. So far I haven’t seen any evidence. Only a theory.

[donfriesen1]

Paul should be seen, in v4, as referring to the

cover of shame, as the cover which reduces the

glory of God for a man. Paul is all about God and

his Word. When OT references (the OT being the

only Word he has) does not show long hair as

shameful on a man, it is logical to accept that the

OT references which show an ashamed man as

covered, should be what he refers to and not to

sinful long hair. 2Sa15.30 is one of many.

So David went up by the Ascent of the Mount of

Olives, and wept as he went up; and he had his

head covered and went barefoot. And all the people

who were with him covered their heads and went up,

weeping as they went up. The OT actually

shows long hair as favourable when God commands

long-term Nazirites to have long uncut hair. (This

apparently contradicts the interpretation of v14,

which understanding will have to be reconciled.

Which is easier to adjust to reconcile: 1. the many,

many scriptures which shows a covered ashamed

man; or 2. the singular verse in 1Co11.14? v4 is

easy to be seen as referring to the veil. Only v14 is

the difficulty.) While countervailing to widely-held

views (it will for this reason alone be rejected by

many, ignoring scriptural reasoning) it is logical by

scriptural reasoning to see Paul as doing so. It is

more logical to have a view based in scripture than

one with values pulled out of feelings. When Paul is

seen in 1Co11 as stating that a man with long hair

is sinning, this view does not have OT backing. If

thought still true, then Paul seemingly pulls the

thought from thin air or feelings. It does not have

OT backing as a scriptural view outside of

misinterpreted 1Co11.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Paul should be seen, in v4, as referring to the

cover of shame, as the cover which reduces the

glory of God for a man. Paul is all about God and

his Word. When OT references (the OT being the

only Word he has) does not show long hair as

shameful on a man, it is logical to accept that the

OT references which show an ashamed man as

covered, should be what he refers to and not to

sinful long hair. 2Sa15.30 is one of many.

So David went up by the Ascent of the Mount of

Olives, and wept as he went up; and he had his

head covered and went barefoot. And all the people

who were with him covered their heads and went up,

weeping as they went up. The OT actually

shows long hair as favourable when God commands

long-term Nazirites to have long uncut hair. (This

apparently contradicts the interpretation of v14,

which understanding will have to be reconciled.

Which is easier to adjust to reconcile: 1. the many,

many scriptures which shows a covered ashamed

man; or 2. the singular verse in 1Co11.14? v4 is

easy to be seen as referring to the veil. Only v14 is

the difficulty.) While countervailing to widely-held

views (it will for this reason alone be rejected by

many, ignoring scriptural reasoning) it is logical by

scriptural reasoning to see Paul as doing so. It is

more logical to have a view based in scripture than

one with values pulled out of feelings. When Paul is

seen in 1Co11 as stating that a man with long hair

is sinning, this view does not have OT backing. If

thought still true, then Paul seemingly pulls the

thought from thin air or feelings. It does not have

OT backing as a scriptural view outside of

misinterpreted 1Co11.

Are you part of the Branhamite church in Edmonton?

[Esaias]

I wonder if Don wears a hat during service?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I wonder if Don wears a hat during service?

Yes, made of tin foil.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother Don,

You have it wrong. We have no obligation to prove

you wrong. [COLOR="Black"]You are right. No one

has an absolute right to demand another prove the

op's points. I agreed to this in my previous response

to the last post of yours. But there is more to the

story than just this.



The evolution of this thread shows more to this than

my presentation of a theory and just asking someone

to prove it wrong. But posters have read the theory;

and some then just said it was wrong. Its OK for

someone to say it is wrong. But there is an

expectation in life and in a discussion forum, that

efforts would be taken to show how it is wrong.

With some, this did not happen. Others said it was

wrong, then giving explanations why their currently-

held view was right. This did not prove the iv wrong.

Others gave arguments why the iv was wrong, but

these were weak arguments. I refuted them with

reason and scripture. The posters did not then refute

my refutation. This then appears to either show the

iv as incontrovertibly right or posters not wanting to

accept the challenge to convincingly prove it wrong,

for whatever reason. Those posters who say it is

wrong, setting themselves up as true judges,

should give proof why they say what they say. Those

who don't do so, show themselves as an 'AFF

Daddy or Mommy'. This, alongside their prominent

postings in

AFF, also. Daddy should show why he is right, not

just imply they are right. It is right and ethical to

demand such proofs of such as these. Their posturing

as Daddy self-obligates them to show proofs. Their

saying another is wrong, just because they can move

their lips to say 'wrong', proves nothing worthy to be

believed.



Some posters have even said that humans do not

have instincts. Some posters have provided lengthy

arguments against the iv, which actually show

support for it. When this is pointed to them, met with

silence instead of showing it wrong, it testifies that it

is so.



Logic tells us, when arguments are presented which

aren't proved wrong, that they then should be

received as truth. This hasn't happened here with the

iv. Those who proclaim love for truth, which is the

Apostolic's mantra, choose instead to reject the truth

of the iv. This is hypocrisy in action. It should be

accepted or proved wrong. [/COLOR] It is instead

your duty to prove your point. [SIZE="3"]I've

taken much time and effort to present the iv. It is a

logical, scripturallly based view. No one can say that I

have not taken efforts to prove it. It's ludicrous to

say so. Any who purposely do so are disingenuous

or haven't really read what I've written. Facts like

those should be checked before statements made.

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

It seems to me that you have a theory. You have a

hypothetical argument. You have not provided

anything but an hypothesis. How

any poster who has read my commentary or my

posts can make that statement boggles the mind.

I've provided many logical arguments, quoted many

scriptures, in support of the iv. I've also provided

many logical arguments which show the errors seen

in the ulv and the vv. Readers know this is true.

Thus, it just isn't so. Thus, those making such

arguments have the appearance of blowing smoke.

And then you put the

burden on us to prove you’re wrong?



That’s not how it works. Bring the receipts! Provide

scripture. Give us something to believe. And it can’t

be that the opposite view is not true. Because it is

quite possible that neither view is true.

Anyone looking for my scriptural

proofs should read the commentary and read the

posts. I do not ignore scripture. Those saying I omit

presenting scriptural proofs, have not read my

writings; or are just wanting to paint a picture of me

which is untrue. Readers who are sincere and

unbiased in studying this thread, do not need to be

convinced that I am scriptural, because it is

self-evident as true. And if that

were the case, both views would be wrong.

Indeed! Every view of 1Co11 uses

conjecture to varying degrees. So your statement

may be true. Logic tells us opposing thoughts can't

all be true, and it is possible that one can.



Prove that your view is truth. I’m waiting. But don’t

assume that you’re right because you believe

someone else is wrong. I've

addressed both sides in my writings. It’s

possible to believe in

oneness and be wrong (to use your analogy) and on

the other hand to believe in the trinity and be wrong.

It is impossible to use scripture and

logic to then say the Oneness/Jesus name baptism

views are wrong. Trinitarianism defies/opposes both

logic and scripture.



For instance, I believe that the tithe doctrine, believed

by oneness Pentecostals and trinitarian Pentecostals

to be false on many different counts. So I provide

scripture that verifies my position. I don’t put the

onus on others to prove me wrong. I provide scripture

that is truth and point out where it conflicts with the

doctrine taught by the church. This

is the right approach. Because you have not provided

details, on a subject for another thread, I won't say

yea or nay to any doctrine of tithing here and now.



I invite you to do the same. So far I haven’t seen any

evidence. Only a theory. I again

repeat what was said above. Anyone who reads my

commentary/my posts, will not say that I have not

provided reasons from logic and scripture. It is

impossible to correctly say I have not done so.

Readers know this to be true.



Plz take the time and effort to compile the points

I've made and refute them one at a time, point by

point. Making blanket statements,as you've done,

provides no reader with a convincing proof to hang

their hat on. Those doing so only provide useless

for exegesis personally-held opinions.



See posts 305, 339, 340, 342 for an example of

such a compilation. It shows what others have said

which proves the iv wrong. In the making of such a

compilation I show that I have read and given proper

consideration of others views. I neglect nothing of

others or of scripture. I attempt to be thorough,

providing detailed postings which have garnered

criticism from people looking for the quick fix. They

want truth but don't want to put forth the effort

needed to find it.

[/SIZE].

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

.

Tithemister you have your homework for tonight.
Don, lures people through aggravation to replying to his posts. Once we take the bait he then drains us, and ignores the sensible postings you offered him. He is just a part of a group who felt they knew more than the rest of us, and to prove it they post soul crushing blather.