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

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Readers may want to see my commentary on "RO2, JN3, AC2" for a better understanding why Evang. Benincasa speaks as he does.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing


Any comments/replies to it are best left in the AFF thread titled "John3 and Romans2: Part2".

Hard pass

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

I appreciate the feedback. Sorry about that other formatting. I had thought it was better for cell phone readers (I don't have a cell). Now, by the response from you and Amanah, I know better.

Views of God's Word should make sense. Sometimes the verses just need to be put it in a certain order, or said a certain way, before it is seen so. If not seen in this order it can lead to misinterpretations.

Careful now. If you are seen by others as agreeing with my logic, you may be cast in the same negative light as I; by you-know-who, who makes negative comments of me and not my views, while not also providing many logical/scriptural arguments against the iv.

Having scored a point with you, do I dare press my luck? Will my current good fortune with you hold long enough to see you consider the following?

Food for thought: Paul shows that the source for his 1Co11 thoughts are in the OT. (He references A&E in the Beginning.) If the foundation of what he says in the NT is in the OT, then should not the details of it also be seen there? Makes sense.

For example, if Jesus is called the Lamb of God in the NT, then we would expect an OT foundation for this NT detail. The foundation is there, in the OT.

Another example. It is believed by many Apostolics that 1Co11 commands a woman to have uncut hair. Is this detail seen in the OT foundation, by command? NO. References, plz, if not thought so.

But if the uncut-hair-conclusion detail is actually seen in the OT as true, can it be said to be by command when the command isn't found? Of course not. Can it not then be said, if it believed true, that there may be another foundation for the said 'uncut hair' detail? Logic says YES, if it is actually seen there.

If the OT-foundation source does not also show the NT-detail in it, then the NT-detail must be provided an explanation for this seeming discrepancy. The iv provides this explanation. It says that instincts provides the explanation of the NT appearance of the detail, which instinct would also have been active in the OT providing its appearance there if actually true. (While I do not agree that the NT asks for uncut hair, but long hair -- see my commentary, link is in post1 -- I argue here from the view point that the majority of Apostolic's take.) The ulv does not provide this explanation. It does not coherently explain why no OT command for uncut hair is shown. If you ask I will explain further.

I suggest first, that there are no OT verses showing 'uncut hair' (except perhaps only in Nazirite women, usually only in a temporary vow. As such, it was only commanded of the vower, not the general saint.) But I may be proved wrong. Quote verses, plz, to show me wrong.

I suggest also that those verses which show long-haired women (vs uncut hair - there is substantial difference between the two) do not show them doing so, from a command which isn't there asking for it. Whether it is 'uncut' or 'long', the OT does not contain commands for either, other than in vowers. Is this not right? (What explanation is given by either uncut hair view holder or long hair view holder which explains why the OT does not contain these commands? The iv gives an explanation.)

If Paul teaches in the NT that which he says is based in the OT, then the details of it should also be seen in the OT. And if we say that uncut hair is commanded by Paul in the NT, then we would expect to see it in the OT. We don't. Something is off about the view which says it is commanded in the NT when it is not seen in the OT.

This leads to the conclusion that the understanding of the NT uncut hair command is by misinterpretation/misunderstanding. (The OT had come first. It makes precedences for what follows. The OT lays the foundations for the NT. Truth in the NT must not be seen to contradict truth of the OT. Those who say the NT commands show truth contrary to the OT, which doesn't command either long hair, nor uncut hair.) The conclusion called "uncut hair for the NT saint' is not reflected in what Paul shows is his source of origin - the OT. The OT had not set uncut hair by precedent command.

Paul, who loves the (OT) Word - basing his life's-values on it, would base any of the NT values he teaches, on what the OT revealed. That he references the Beginning in 1Co11, shows this is true.The OT had not revealed uncut, or even long hair, by command. If the OT did not command something like uncut hair, then Paul would not command it for the NT. The source for his thoughts is not the OT. They are sourced elsewhere. This logic cannot be thought wrong, can it? (Except perhaps for you-know-who. They only need to say something is wrong and it is wrong. They need have no logic/scripture to show, and it is still wrong. That they do not present rational or scriptural arguments against the iv shows what? That it is irrefutable? They would present them if they had them. It is impossible to successfully argue against truth using truth.)

If any Apostolic believes instead that the woman's cover is the veil and not uncut hair, does not the logic shown in this post, apply equally to the veil? Makes sense to think so.

.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

.

Im going to have to read this when Im not in a vehicle. 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 even if it harelips the Pope...the Catholic one or any other that would exalt their thrones above The Most High.

Also, Ive been here a minute through some highs and lows and have seen them come and go sadly. The ones that have been vocal, stuck it out and that I have gotten to know have my respect and hopefully I theirs...even so I walk alone me and my family mostly, bound by the invisible bonds that connect us to other Believers in the Body and we all have differeing views that clash in some way...hair probably isnt the Hill Im gonna die on by a long shot because for me its not a fight to the death. I neither fetishize it or ananthamize it, however I feel it has a purpose dealing with shame and covenant.

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?

I see what you're saying and I see you crafting your argument and its not something I can really argue back n forth but I keep thinking...Why would the expression of shame be forbidden on this way? Besides tradition, whats the real reason...and honestly I dont think the people with strong opinions agaisnt it really understand whats truely at play when you factor in the Nazarite provisons and also Pauls actions with himself and others and then when you take out the "rebellious" trope of Absolom*he was but wasnt always the case...it was definitely progressive due to the relationship breakdown after his actions against Amnon* He wasnt wearing the hair because of rebellion...he was a Nazarite that was well liked.

Ill keep chewing.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Im going to have to read this when Im not in a vehicle. 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 even if it harelips the Pope...the Catholic one or any other that would exalt their thrones above The Most High.

Also, Ive been here a minute through some highs and lows and have seen them come and go sadly. The ones that have been vocal, stuck it out and that I have gotten to know have my respect and hopefully I theirs...even so I walk alone me and my family mostly, bound by the invisible bonds that connect us to other Believers in the Body and we all have differeing views that clash in some way...hair probably isnt the Hill Im gonna die on by a long shot because for me its not a fight to the death. I neither fetishize it or ananthamize it, however I feel it has a purpose dealing with shame and covenant.

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?

I see what you're saying and I see you crafting your argument and its not something I can really argue back n forth but I keep thinking...Why would the expression of shame be forbidden on this way? Besides tradition, whats the real reason...and honestly I dont think the people with strong opinions agaisnt it really understand whats truely at play when you factor in the Nazarite provisons and also Pauls actions with himself and others and then when you take out the "rebellious" trope of Absolom*he was but wasnt always the case...it was definitely progressive due to the relationship breakdown after his actions against Amnon* He wasnt wearing the hair because of rebellion...he was a Nazarite that was well liked.

Ill keep chewing.

David Allen Coe

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

David Allen Coe

🤣 mine aint a waist length blonde wig bro.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

🤣 mine aint a waist length blonde wig bro.

That’ll harelip the Pope.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Hard pass

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.

[Amanah]

The above post is weird. The text is unreadable.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The above post is weird. The text is unreadable.

Do you refer to a post 457, addressed/replying to diakonos?

Do you read it on a PC or a phone? I read it on a PC and it is perfectly legible.

Can you describe the issue you have with it being unreadable?

Keep me posted.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The above post is weird. The text is unreadable.