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

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, these will be my last words to you in this thread. Because I honestly feel you are a waste of precious time. You most likely have been in Pentecost for awhile, therefore you should know better. Yet, you came to a place in your life where you felt Apostolic Pentecostalism needed to be reformed. You feel that you are a sighted guide and we are all just blind, waiting for you to take us by the hand and lead us head first to a bottomless pit. You never offer us your information to be considered. Or to have a discussion to where we see fault. No, because we have exhausted ourselves in doing so. You therefore mock us claiming we treated you unfairly. But, in reading your posts you are projecting your own behavior onto others. You must be an utter religious horror show in real life. Believe me, over the years we have dealt with the ecclesiastically psychotic on the forum. Individuals who could not see pass their self idolatry to hold a discussion for any length of time. You believe that God doesn't really care about what He instructed the apostles to preach and teach. You believe that a right living Buddhist (if he never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel) will make heaven his home. Therefore I know what you believe, and what you believe, I don't believe. You haven't convinced anyone here. If you did, they aren't coming forward to sign up for your Bible correspondence course. You believe in Inclusive gospel. I believe in an exclusive gospel. Don, maybe you should try your hand at another topic which doesn't try to get the readers back to your doctrine of inclusive hippy Jesus? But alas, I don't think you can. I will leave you with these few pieces of scripture. Again, I will no longer deal with you in this thread.

Romans 1:18-23

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

[donfriesen1]

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

PART 1 of 2.

Thx for the reply, Esaias. It is always good to hear from a highly esteemed member of AFF.

********

FYI, for the Reader: What Esaias has previously said, in so many words, is: 'My own view is the right interpretation.' He, thus, does what everyone else does, when they say 'my view is right'. We would expect no less. I do the same.

What Esaias has not previously convincingly shown, in so many words, is: 'I will show the iv is wrong by showing its proofs wrong.' Some attempts have been made by him with counter arguments, but when I've countered them, he hasn't responded to the counter arguments.

******

Those who wish to replace existing error with new truth are tasked to do two things. Convincingly show why the old is wrong. Convincingly show why the new is better.

The presenter of the iv has tried to do both.

Those who wish to keep the existing-truth, rejecting the new, are self-tasked in mind, to do two things. Convincingly show why the new is wrong. Convincingly show why the old is right.

Esaias, in defence of the vv, has shown why the vv is right but has not refuted/shown-in-error the claims of the iv.

Old ways are always held tightly, because they have been previously-embraced because of proofs which had been presented; and are also 'the familiar'. The new is usually initially rejected because it isn't clearly understood, and because it isn't in agreement with 'the familiar' and its proofs. The new may be misunderstood because usual paths of understanding used in the old, blocks flow of thoughts in understanding the new.

Truth must be responded to, when presented/heard. It cannot be ignored. Error not so much so.

The iv has been rejected by some, not because it is an unscriptural doctrine, but because it is so unlike the familiar old. Comparisons with long held scriptural beliefs may cause an almost automatic rejection of any newly presented also-scriptural belief.

********

Many scholars say that 1Co11 is one of the most difficult passages to get a clear, conclusive understanding of. Many scriptural/logical explanations have been proffered over many years. The iv, vv and ulv are among the many. All are logical, scriptural, presented by those who love God's Word. Some, though logical to an extent, also have inconsistencies. Logic tells us that of the many, the one with the broadest scriptural proofs without inconsistencies, should be the one to hold.

************

A NT-ONLY REQUIREMENT ? BY REVELATION ?

It has been said, by Esaias, that showing regard to God's order of authority, is only a requirement for the NT saint. Thus, those of the OT-time ages were not required to show regard to God's order of authority. This may have been said because the OT scriptures nowhere give a hint of any instructions similar to the NT instruction. Can this be disproved? I think not. So, when Paul is seen instructing in 1Co11 that which the OT doesn't instruct, then a logical explanation is, it came to Paul by revelation of God. It is true that the OT is silent, with no statement or command on this subject and, thus, is not the motivator for Paul to instruct.

Because of this lack in the OT, it is then said that Paul instructs by 'revelation of God', not by OT scripture.

It must then be by revelation; because Paul cannot be seen to point back to any OT scripture for the specifics of the instructions he gives to the NT saint. (Paul provides specifics, for a core thought. The core is: 'regard to God's order of authority'. The specifics show how this regard is fulfilled. 1. Some, who believe he instructs from revelation, say a woman must have uncut hair and a man must have short hair. There are no general OT scriptures commanding either. OR 2. Some, who believe he instructs from revelation, say a woman must have a veil and a man must have short hair. There are no OT scriptures commanding or stating either specific.)

Thus, what Paul NT-instructs, is not a continuation of something originating in the OT. Paul then may be seen to speak from revelation, when he cannot be seen to be referring to any OT scripture for the specifics he NT-instructs.

But Paul actually instructs as if NOT by revelation. He actually is seen pointing back to the OT scriptures which speak of A&E's Creation times. He IS referring to OT scripture, and thus, it should not be said he is instructing by revelation.

Why then, if the source is actually of an OT-origin (Paul must think it is, or he wouldn't refer to The Beginning), can no OT statements or commands from God be found in the OT, respecting either 1. a regard to God's order of authority, OR, 2. a command to cover/uncover - as a symbolic regard to it? For, Paul instructs females to be covered and males uncovered, to show regard to God's order, which he says is sourced in The Beginning. Logic tells us that the specifics should also be seen in the OT, if the OT is the source of the core. The OT people are as human as the NT people; needing instruction for the requirements to show regard to God's order of authority.

The real reason specifics are not seen OT-instructed is, the core had not been a requirement by statement or command of God in the OT. Regard to God's order of authority is not known by OT statement or command, but by deductive reasoning. This is discovered by Paul, not from statements of instruction from God or commands of God, but by deductive reasoning. (Which person in the times previous to Paul had spoken on this topic? None.) Paul does not know it by 1. OT words from God, OR, 2. NT-revelation (unless deductive reasoning is described as revelation of God).

PART 2 of 2 to follow.

[donfriesen1]

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

PART 2 of 2.

God has gifted Man with deductive reasoning abilities to instruct them. Ro1.18-32 shows a example where it should have been used, but wasn't.

If Paul does not instruct from revelation, nor by OT scripture, what then is the source for the what and the why, when he instructs? Plz, Esaias, my brother who has greater scriptural understandings and experiences vastly overshadowing mine, plz provide an opinion.

Paul is the first ever to write in scripture, of this deductive reasoning discovery, doing so in 1Co11. Paul instructs on a principle he has discovered, from his use of human deductive reasonings. His reasoning abilities, and not OT instructions from God which don't exist, leads to this discovery. Thus, he instructs in 1Co11 (on a principle he has seen hidden between the lines in The Beginning scriptural texts) and this instruction is not by way of an OT statement or NT revelation of God.

That Paul is the first ever to write about this principle is the reason no other Apostle mentions this topic, nor even Jesus. It had been much after Jesus left, that it became known, only to Paul. The exact date he discovers it is not known, but it may be logical to assume it was discovered by necessity, in response to the events occurring in the Corinthian church he fathered and wanted to protect.

Principles should be followed because it is wise to do so. Those who do not are fools. But it is not sin when not followed, unless they are also commanded. Is this not right thinking?

(How is it that Christians speak so freely and confidently about the concept/principle of free will? What direct statement or direct command of God has led them to this surety? Isn't it by examination of the events of The Beginning, a reading between the lines, to discover this hidden principle? Yes.)

Abraham tithed by principle, and was not instructed by God to do so. The NT saint tithes by this same principle. It is good to do so, but it was not NT commanded. Tithing should not be the only thing done by principle. Regard to God's order of authority, and regard to free will, should be as well. It is wrong to say these principles are commands of God for the NT, when they are discoveries made by a Man. Or, would any say principles are commands?

If principles such as these can be seen to produce religious actions in the NT, should it not be considered possible that other principles would lead to other NT religious action? For example, the 'regard to God's order of authority' principle in the NT could be shown to be acted on by the display of symbols. Of course! That some principles are demonstrated should lead to the possibility that others could as well.

Does Paul instruct in 1Co11? Of course. The question isn't if he instructs or not. The question is, does he instruct from the basis of a command-of-God/revelation? That the OT shows no commands (for OT Man, who some think God only/always commands instructions and never by means of deductive reasoning) should correctly lead to conclusions that Paul in 1Co11 doesn't instruct from a command/revelation basis.

It should be said of 1Co11, that Paul instructs the keeping of a principle he has discovered. Does or would Paul command that which God had not? Not likely? Paul's discovery was not by revelation, nor by his reading of directly-related OT scripture on the topic -- but by the powers of deduction -- because that is what the facts point to as actually happening.

One clear fact is that Paul refers to The Beginning, which has no direct statements of: 1. regard to God's order of authority, 2. of covering/uncovering. Yet still, Paul is clearly pointing to/instructing something he has seen in The Beginning, reading between the lines.

Thus, Paul points to a principle which had not ever been commanded by God. (If not also seen so for the OT Law time, as with The Beginning time, then quoting OT scriptures from the Law would disprove this fact, that God also did not command anything about head coverings or regard to God's order of authority in the Law. These can't be found.) Because Paul, in other places, states he has received a revelation when he shares instruction from the revelation, it would lead one to believe that he would do the same here in 1Co11, if it had come by revelation of God.

Perhaps an explanation from you Esaias, can be given for, why no commands were given humans for the first 4000 yrs of Man's history, asking them to show regard to God's order of authority. Logic would tell us that all humans of all time should show regard equally, to God's order of authority, if some are.

And at the same time, also provide any reasonings at all, why God would only ask regard to his order of authority, of those in the Church Age, those after Ac2, when logic says all humans of all times should be seen needing to show equal regard.

While you are at it, plz explain why no requirements on this important subject are seen for the new Church, between Ac2 and 1Co11. How many years are between Ac2 and 1Co11, during which time the saint had no instruction, for that which you say is only for the NT times? Why did these not have all the instructions of the NT church? Were these times not in the NT? Can you provide this explanation, Esaias? Plz?

If you have no explanations, then I would refer you to the iv, which does.

(Esaias, who without doubt is a highly-regarded seasoned veteran of AFF, has been challenged in the past by my similar questions. He did not respond then and I think he will not respond now. The reason is, you cannot disprove truth with truth. Truth is Esaias' usual weapon. If the iv is of God, then it is not likely that it can be disproved using God-given reason and scripture. This may be the reason why Esaias has not responded, to a great extent, in the past. If it is not of God, then the Word of God will dismantle it.)

Not providing an explanation will show a weakness of the vv. Its view is rooted solely in 1Co11, when any view should be seen rooted throughout all scripture times, that all Men of all times are seen needing to show regard to God's order of authority. Similarly so, for the ulv. Both of their interpretations only use 1Co11 for proofs, when evidence of God's true doctrine should be seen throughout all scriptural times. Regard to God's order of authority should be seen to be in effect for all humanity for all times of history.

Seeing it rooted in instincts sees regard being shown throughout Man's existence, by that which God himself placed in them, known to all by deductive reasoning in all times by principle and not command which doesn't exist.

That no good explanation can be given for 'the OT-times absence-of-head-covering-command', leads one to believe that regard to God's order of authority was fulfilled in OT times in another way, other than commands. It may be by the impulses God placed within them by instincts. Instinctive impulses are expressions of the will of God in a non-verbal non-commanding way. God gives them to be followed, not ignored.

Instincts are shown to exist very early on in Man's history, by God's own statement in Ge3.16.

When an explanation fits the facts well, then it may be the right explanation for all to hold. When other explanations have discrepancies, then a scriptural explanation without discrepancies should be embraced. Do you see discrepancies in the iv, that donfriesen1 should be made aware of, Esaias?

That you have not previously shared these, hints that they do not exist, and are not known by you.

That the first 4000 yrs of Man's history shows no statements on an important topic, shows that regard to God's order of authority was not a topic with commands. God usually gives clear instructions by way of direct statements on things he desires to see in Man. But he also instructs by ways of deductive reasoning, as per Ro1.18-32. It is not always by commands. Paul instructs in 1Co11, but he should not be seen to command that which God had not previously commanded.

Instincts are not commands, though expressing God's will. Can the thought (of God's placing of instincts in Man, doing so to express his will) be rationally contested? If not, then why should it be considered that the regard to God's order of authority can not be expressed through instincts? If not, then why fight against an idea which does not show inconsistencies. Instead, why not reject that which has inconsistencies to receive another without?

When instincts are followed, they should show results in Man showing regard to God's order of authority. Males are shown living shamelessly, giving glory to God thereby with unveiled heads. Females are shown giving regard to their husbands, fulfilling their God-given reason of creation -- for their man -- who likes long hair on women. This is showing regard to God's order of authority.

The same thing is reached in the iv without inconsistencies, that the vv and the ulv attempt to do with inconsistencies. The iv is a scriptural view attempting to use the whole Bible to help provide an explanation of what Paul muddily instructs in 1Co11. All today agree Paul muddily instructed, or a multitude of contrary explanations of 1Co11 wouldn't be seen.

That which Paul thought would be easily understood by all, has not been, because time and cultural differences have obscured it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

PART 1 of 2.

Thx for the reply, Esaias. It is always good to hear from a highly esteemed member of AFF.

********

FYI, for the Reader: What Esaias has previously said, in so many words, is: 'My own view is the right interpretation.' He, thus, does what everyone else does, when they say 'my view is right'. We would expect no less. I do the same.

This is why you don't have any friends here.

Carry on... there'll be peace when you are done... etc.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, these will be my last words to you in this thread. Because I honestly feel you are a waste of precious time. You most likely have been in Pentecost for awhile, therefore you should know better. Yet, you came to a place in your life where you felt Apostolic Pentecostalism needed to be reformed. You feel that you are a sighted guide and we are all just blind, waiting for you to take us by the hand and lead us head first to a bottomless pit. You never offer us your information to be considered. Or to have a discussion to where we see fault. No, because we have exhausted ourselves in doing so. You therefore mock us claiming we treated you unfairly. But, in reading your posts you are projecting your own behavior onto others. You must be an utter religious horror show in real life. Believe me, over the years we have dealt with the ecclesiastically psychotic on the forum. Individuals who could not see pass their self idolatry to hold a discussion for any length of time. You believe that God doesn't really care about what He instructed the apostles to preach and teach. You believe that a right living Buddhist (if he never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel) will make heaven his home. Therefore I know what you believe, and what you believe, I don't believe. You haven't convinced anyone here. If you did, they aren't coming forward to sign up for your Bible correspondence course. You believe in Inclusive gospel. I believe in an exclusive gospel. Don, maybe you should try your hand at another topic which doesn't try to get the readers back to your doctrine of inclusive hippy Jesus? But alas, I don't think you can. I will leave you with these few pieces of scripture. Again, I will no longer deal with you in this thread.

Romans 1:18-23

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

donfriesen 1 replies, using CAPITAL LETTERS. Dom uses small letters.

Don, these will be my last words to you in this thread. DOM, STAY STRONG. QUITTERS ARE NEVER WINNERS. YOU HAVE MUCH TO OFFER. DIP INTO YOUR VAST RESERVOIR OF KNOWLEDGE AND SHOW HOW THE IV IS AN UNSCRIPTURAL VIEW WITHOUT SOUND REASONING; IF YOU CAN.

Because I honestly feel you are a waste of precious time. You most likely have been in Pentecost for awhile, therefore you should know better. Yet, you came to a place in your life where you felt Apostolic Pentecostalism needed to be reformed. You feel that you are a sighted guide and we are all just blind, waiting for you to take us by the hand and lead us head first to a bottomless pit. DO YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT HAVING THE CORRECT VIEW OF 1CO11 DETERMINES WHETHER ONE IS SAVED, AND IF NOT HOLDING THE CORRECT -- TO THE PIT??? IS THE CORRECT VIEW OF HEAD COVERINGS A PART OF CORRECT SOTERIOLOGY? IF SO, THEN YOU AS EVANGELIST BENINCASA, HAVE GOT A WIDE OPEN FIELD BEFORE YOU AMONG APOSTOLICS. MOST APOSTOLICS DO NOT HOLD THE VIEW OF HEAD COVERINGS YOU HOLD. (EB HAS HIGH-FIVED ESAIAS, WHO BELIEVES IN THE VV.) RATHER THIS, THE CORRECT HEADCOVERING VIEW DOES NOT DETERMINE SALVATION. BELIEVING SO, EXPOSES WEAKNESSES OF THE RATIONALITY OF YOUR VIEWS. YOU SHOULD TAKE MUCH TIME TO RE-EXAMINE THEM ALL. THERE WAS NO HEADCOVERING TEACHING BETWEEN PENTECOST AND 1CO11. BY YOUR CONCLUSIONS, THESE CAN'T BE SAVED.

You never offer us your information to be considered. PARDON ME? DID I JUST HEAR YOU SAYING THAT I HAD NOT OFFERED ANYTHING TO READERS FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION? WOW! THAT ONE IS COMING WAY OUT OF LEFT FIELD. YOU ARE, IN POST 491, JUST BLOWING PROVERBIAL SMOKE, SIR.

Or to have a discussion to where we see fault. I WELL REMEMBER ASKING READERS THAT THE IV BE GIVEN A SOLID CRITIQUE. I REMEMBER RESPONDING TO ALMOST EVERY COUNTER ARGUMENT. I REMEMBER RE-READING YOUR POSTS AND POSTING CONCLUSIONS, THAT YOUR OWN RESPONSES WERE THEOLOGICALLY QUITE SKIMPY. (ANY READERS INTERESTED IN MY CONCLUSIONS OF DOM'S POSTS CAN SEE MY COMPILATION OF EVANG. BENINCASA'S POSTS IN POST 342.) I ALSO HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED FOR LENGTHY POSTS, SHOWING ME CONTRARY TO EB'S ALLEGATION THAT I PROVIDE NOTHING FOR DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION. MORE SMOKE, NO SUBSTANCE.

No, because we have exhausted ourselves in doing so. THOSE WHO HAVE READ YOUR POSTS KNOW QUITE WELL THIS IS NOT FACTUAL. SEE POST 342. donfriesen1 HAS WRITTEN A BOOK. EB HAS WRITTEN AN AD.

You therefore mock us claiming we treated you unfairly. TRULY, I HAVE MOCKED AS YOU SAY. BUT WHY DO YOU CRY ABOUT MOCKING, WHEN IT IS YOUR OWN RULE THAT HAS SAID THAT MOCKING IS FAIR IN AFF? OH! RIGHT! MOCKING CAN ONLY GO IN ONE DIRECTION FOR IT TO BE 'OK'! IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE CRYING ABOUT, EB? THE GUY WHO SAYS TO MY AFF-FACE, THAT HIS REASON FOR POSTING IN MY THREAD IS TO MOCK ME! CRY ME A RIVER, DOMINIC.

But, in reading your posts you are projecting your own behavior onto others. You must be an utter religious horror show in real life. Believe me, over the years we have dealt with the ecclesiastically psychotic on the forum. MANY READERS WILL NOW SHOW AGREEMENT WITH YOUR ANALYSIS, DR. DOM, JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE PROVIDED ONE BY THIS GREAT EXPERIENCE. YOUR VIEWS, BY THE 'OVER THE YEARS EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE' SHOULD NEVER BE QUESTIONED, EVEN WHILE YOU BELIEVE THAT THE CORRECT HEAD COVERING VIEW DETERMINES ETERNAL DESTINY. SOME READING MAY DEFER TO BE PART OF THIS CROWD WHO FOLLOW YOU IN YOUR EVERY OPINION.

Individuals who could not see pass their self idolatry to hold a discussion for any length of time. DOM, YOU DO NOT HAVE POWERS OF PERCEPTION TO ACCURATELY DISCERN ANYONE OVER THE DISTANCES BETWEEN. YOU SHOULD NOT PORTRAY TO OTHERS THAT YOU DO.

You believe that God doesn't really care about what He instructed the apostles to preach and teach. You believe that a right living Buddhist (if he never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel) will make heaven his home. PLZ PROVIDE QUOTES OF MY SAYING SO, OF WHAT YOU SAY I BELIEVE, AS PROOF OF YOUR STATEMENT. DOM WILL NOT DO SO.

Therefore I know what you believe, and what you believe, I don't believe. You haven't convinced anyone here. WHAT I'VE PRESENTED IS A SCRIPTURAL HEAD COVERING VIEW. I HAVE NO CONTROL OF ANYONE'S RESPONSE TO IT. EVERYONE ALREADY IS AWARE OF THIS AS FACT. SO, YOUR POINT IN SAYING THIS IS WHAT? IS IT TO PROVIDE A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE TO PROVE THE IV WRONG? IF NOT, THEN IT IS MORE SMOKE.

If you did, they aren't coming forward to sign up for your Bible correspondence course. You believe in Inclusive gospel. I believe in an exclusive gospel. READERS: I BELIEVE IN AN INCLUSIVE/EXCLUSIVE GOSPEL, DOING SO SINCE 1971. THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN ARE INCLUDED. THOSE REFUSING THE NEW BIRTH ARE EXCLUDED.

Don, maybe you should try your hand at another topic which doesn't try to get the readers back to your doctrine of inclusive hippy Jesus? WHY IS IT THAT ANY INTELLIGENT MAN, SUCH AS YOURSELF, HAS WASTED SO MUCH TIME READING AND POSTING IN THIS THREAD, WHEN YOU EXPRESS SO MUCH DISGUST OF ME/IT, WHILE NOT PROVIDING BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS WHICH SHOW IT WRONG? WHICH SPIRITUAL QUALITY MOTIVATES SUCH ACTION?

But alas, I don't think you can. I will leave you with these few pieces of scripture. Again, I will no longer deal with you in this thread.PLZ, WHATEVER YOU HAVE BEEN DOING SO FAR HAS NOT BEEN 'DEALING WITH ME'. WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IS MOSTLY RANT AGAINST ME, AND JUST A LITTLE AGAINST THE IV.



YOU ARE NOT LEAVING BECAUSE I HAVE WISHED YOU WOULD GO AWAY. I DO WISH YOU WOULD STAY TO USE WHAT THE LORD HAS GIVEN YOU TO SHOW HOW THE IV IS FLAWED, IF IT TRULY IS FLAWED. WHY HAVE YOU NOT DONE SO ALREADY? IF YOU TRULY ARE GONE, YOUR PERSONAL MOCKING, NON-THEOLOGICAL COMMENTS WON'T BE MISSED. NO ONE, INCLUDING THE READERS, LIKE SMOKE IN THE FACE.


Romans 1:18-23

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. BY SHARING THIS, DOMINIC MAY BE DOING SO, TO ATTEMPT TO ADD A CURSE TO MY LIFE. WHAT THE LORD HAS BLESSED, NONE CAN CURSE. IT IS THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE GOSPEL, OR CHANGE THE WORD OF GOD, OR REJECT TRUTH, WHO ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE TO THEMSELVES A JUST CURSE.

MY MOTIVE IN SHARING MY THOUGHTS IN THIS THREAD IS TO PROVIDE LIGHT WHICH I HAD RECEIVED. DOM HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT WHICH I PERCEIVE TO BE LIGHT, IS DARKNESS. WITH THE VAST KNOWLEDGE OF SCRIPTURE AND WORLDLY RELIGION HE POSSESSES, HE COULD HAVE DONE MUCH BETTER. HE JUST FAILED TO PUT FORTH AN EFFORT.

DOM SAYS HE IS GONE FOR GOOD FROM THIS THREAD. I DON'T THINK THIS WILL HAPPEN. I HOPE HE ACTUALLY TAKES UP THE PEN TO MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO SCRIPTURALLY DISPROVE THE IV.

PS: FOR ANYONE INTERESTED, SEE Post 305, 339, 340, 342 FOR A COMPILATION OF ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE 3 MAJOR COUNTER-IV POSTERS IN THIS THREAD, EXPRESSING THOUGHTS AGAINST THE IV AND ALSO FOR SUPPORT OF THEIR VIEWS. ALSO INCLUDED ARE QUESTIONS ASKED OF THEM BY ME, BUT NOT ANSWERED.

[donfriesen1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post 492
PART 1 of 2.

Thx for the reply, Esaias. It is always good to hear from a highly esteemed member of AFF.

********

FYI, for the Reader: What Esaias has previously said, in so many words, is: 'My own view is the right interpretation.' He, thus, does what everyone else does, when they say 'my view is right'. We would expect no less. I do the same.

ESAIAS RESPONDS TO THE ABOVE WITH:

Originally Posted by Esaias

This is why you don't have any friends here.

Carry on... there'll be peace when you are done... etc.

This is why you don't have any friends here.

What??!!

Esaias, I have no idea why you would respond like this. What did I say that would tick you off?

Nothing I said was inflammatory or mean spirited, initiating such a response.

Esaias knows full well that posts are not read only by regular posters, but also by those who never post, who may not have kept track of details pertinent to a discussion. He may be feigning to be offended. He is thicker-skinned than he pretends not to be.

Reader, Esaias may be employing a trick: pretending to be offended (to be seen as justified to Readers in not responding to the main body of thought, for whatever reasons in not wanting to respond. It is a distraction method. (Also, if you can prod an opponent into a defensive stance by pretending to be angry, they then lose focus).

Doing this does not fool readers, at least, not all. Using distractions makes you look bad. If you don't respond to the main thoughts, then those who know you as highly esteemed, who think you will respond, they then see you as failing.

But you may yet redeem yourself, to prove me wrong in my guesstimation of your response. An explanation from you could do so, then making me appear with egg on my face.

When someone exposes faults in an expressed view, then the proper response is to re-examine it, proving it right or wrong. Changes in previously held conclusions after this may be needed. Esaias' view, the vv, has been exposed with faults. Instead of accepting this as fact or proving the iv wrong, he avoids attempting to do either, with tactics like that used in his latest post.

I've shown evidence of the iv, from many angles. It is a firm Biblically-based view. I've used sound reasonings, which Esaias has difficulty finding anything to say against, this man who really is a legend in AFF. If any could present Bible, or reasons from logic, which would disprove the iv, it would be Esaias. Instead, he sometimes sits on his hands in the sidelines.

When doing so, one who normally would knock out any wrong view, with solid punches, may be showing it not opposable. If not opposable, then the iv may be the view for all to hold.

As the saying goes, you can lead the stallion to water but...if he doesn't drink, then what can you do? You are only a leader.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, these will be my last words to you in this thread. Because I honestly feel you are a waste of precious time. You most likely have been in Pentecost for awhile, therefore you should know better. Yet, you came to a place in your life where you felt Apostolic Pentecostalism needed to be reformed. You feel that you are a sighted guide and we are all just blind, waiting for you to take us by the hand and lead us head first to a bottomless pit...Believe me, over the years we have dealt with the ecclesiastically psychotic on the forum. Individuals who could not see pass their self idolatry to hold a discussion for any length of time. You believe that God doesn't really care about what He instructed the apostles to preach and teach.

(Perhaps we should ask Benincasa what he really thinks about donfriesen1! . He's not pointed enough in his opinion.)

Let's examine what Benincasa says when he thinks donfriesen1 is a rebel apostolic, whose iv conflicts with the traditional ulv and vv. Benincasa would say that it is wrong to say that the long-held view is a misinterpretation. He would say that it is wrong to challenge a long held Apostolic belief because that would be rebelious. Benincasa wants you to continue to hold on to a misinterpretation, in spite of its lack of total agreement with scripture and reason. And Benincasa says this, not by providing scriptural proofs or deductive reasonings, but just by providing an opinion without supporting arguments. See post 342. Thus, he sets himself up as an authority who should be believed just because he speaks. A better way is to read the scripture, pray, asking for guidance for comparison, when any scriptural view contrary to the long-held view comes along. Comparisons to scripture, rightly interpreted, along with sound reasoning, reveal truth all should hold dear. But to trust in one who sets himself up as an authority, without providing evidences thereto, is foolishness.

This man, Benincasa, who himself bucks the majority with his 'no-rapture' views! What he condemns in me, 'contrariness to the majority/long held', he allows in himself in rejecting the rapture.

This is hypocritical. This from the man who pens the following:

https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ad.php?t=55138

If You Want To Know Who Rules Over YOU

Kevin Alfred Strom — 'If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.'

Matthew 7:16 speaks of knowing a tree by the produce. We are warned about making sure our own eyes are clean before helping another remove their obstructions Matthew 7:3-5. We are warned against correcting a fool Proverbs 26:4-5. Yet, in the same verses we are told that we may need to correct a fool if and when the need arises. Yet, if you grab a dog by its ears Proverbs 26:17. You will be bitten. Most times it's better to keep our thoughts and ideas to ourselves. While receiving constructive criticism: Our initial instinct is to defend ourselves, remaining silent and truly listening to feedback can be more productive. This allows us to process the information without defensiveness and shows a willingness to learn and grow. A wise man wants correction he will appreciate you. While a foolish man will hate you for the correction Proverbs 9:8.

Yet, when people see obvious wrongs being committed and they speak up. Then those people are persecuted by authorities. Not persecutions spiced with intellectual reasons to answer the complaints and criticisms being voiced. But total shut down, to the point of having your life destroyed because you questioned and criticiszed.

Burned at the stake, dragged through the streets until the meat falls off your bones. For what? Because you happened to notice that the emperor has no clothes on? That the rich and powerful Oz is merely just a fool trying to be something he is not?

When corruption becomes so blatant, so exposed. That the powers that be have to attack its own people to stop their criticisms. Just look who you are criticizing. See the ones you are not allowed to point the finger at.

Our Evang.Benincasa would criticize the iv (or rather, its author, who he regularly berates and poses as a fool, taking very little time himself to actually examine and criticize the iv); doing so without providing evidence thereto. How is he different from those who he exposes in his posting above? Doing so in this thread shows him hypocritical by his own standards!

Has the author of the iv not begged for a critical examination of its points? YES. Has the writer of the iv not responded to the few arguments against it with counter arguments (which counter arguments have had no efforts made to refute them)? YES. Yet, Benincasa has persisted in personal attacks with comments against the author, instead of providing scripture/evidences from reason as to why the iv should be rejected. What gives with Benincasa? in a forum for theological discussions? He poses very few arguments. Why does one such as he stoop to lowly attacks when he is so capable to present attacks from a scriptural perspective? He says he doesn't want to waste his time with theological arguments, yet wastes his time by penning personal aspersions. Thus, seen doing so, he sets himself up as an authority all should believe in just because he says them, while not providing theological arguments. See post 342. All hail Benincasa!

There’s trouble in paradise, if tactics like Benincasa uses are silently applauded. It calls into question something of Benincasa and those who agree with him in silence. Let us pray.

Dom, if you don't want to reply to me in this thread, you still have the ability to do so, with a private message.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ad.php?t=55138

If You Want To Know Who Rules Over YOU

Kevin Alfred Strom — 'If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.'

The above post is by Evang. Benincasa.

For what its worth: This man who Benincasa references for highlighting of their opinion, has quite some reputation.

.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

.

Since Don is trying to bring guilt through association I need to answer this trash.
Don, I used the quote. Therefore I needed to mention the individual who made the quote. I agree with the quote, not the author of the quote. Since you could never win a fair fight with anyone you look for garbage. Therefore you proved to me once again, that while you aren’t a Christian, you aren’t a man. I will no longer address you for any reason. You are a coward. Contemplate this on the tree of woe.

[donfriesen1]

Words change with time. This would show that definitions of a word's meaning would also change.

The core Apostolic belief of a woman's head covering comes from the application of a definition of a Greek word. 1Co11.15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. Komao, the Greek for long hair, means: long uncut hair. But we have no scriptural examples which flesh out this definition. Why not, if it is a command of God? Does anyone see something wrong with this lack?

Basing a doctrine on a word definition alone, shows it places an over-reliance on word definitions, which definition may change over time.

Had Paul lived in another time, komao may not have meant the same. But what else can be trusted, when humans have developed language (words) to better live life by, than to trust words and their definitions? Does anyone think there is something wrong with having as the foundation of a doctrine something fleeting, doing so without a statement or command of God or scriptural examples? (I'm reminded of a sermon titled "God commands, God explains, God gives examples" ...mmm, sounds right/logical. Should all three be expected every time, with every doctrine?)

Paul writes at a time when only the OT existed. He quotes no OT command or example which would show the reason for his use of this particular word or the use of its definition. If anything, when nothing in the OT reflects the definition, he uses it as an example, that which has its source in pagan Greece (language). If not for an example, then the foundation of a Christian doctrine has this from a pagan nation, as its base.

If so, does anyone see a problem that the foundation of a doctrine is rooted in pagan language and not scripture, except one verse in 1Co11? Why does he not refer to a command or OT example, and using a pagan word instead?

That a head-covering doctrine based largely on a pagan word, without OT commands or examples thereto to provide support, should provide reason for its (re)examination. That thought is complicated by the use of the word in the Bible. It becomes God's Word. But is it by command or an example of a practice?

When the OT is silent about it or its definition, it leads us to wonder about its source and the why of its inclusion.

That Paul uses a word from pagans should see Paul as using Greece as one example of a practice seen among many other nations. That he uses Greek is no surprise, because it is the dominant international language of the time. Paul had almost no choice but to use Greek.

Pagan Greece had the practice of long uncut hair. (I suggest that uncut means comparatively so. I suggest that the Greek people would not have had uncut as a strict 'never-cut a quarter of an inch off' practice, which is the Apostolic's definition. Instead, uncut meant uncut by comparison to those who cut it shorter. It would still be long, comparatively, though 1/4" or an inch shorter.) Thus they had it long, perhaps cutting its ends a little but definitely long. What in societal Greece would motivate never cutting even a quarter of an inch off, when the dominant reason for long hair was ornamental. Cutting the ends would have contributed to the best ornamental look, yet still would be seen uncut long. The Greek motivation for long hair was ornamentation for social purposes, as it was in many nations who followed God-given instincts. Women all over the world have a built-in desire to be pretty and use long hair to help with this. Greece is an example of this, one among many.

Use your favourite Ai to search out whether or not other ancient nations also had practices around long or uncut long hair. Some groups did so, for religious reasons. Did these groups originate before Paul? Yes. Greece and others practiced uncut long hair for ornamental and sometimes for religious reasons long before Paul wrote 1Co11.

That many ancient nations have words and practices indicating uncut long hair does not indicate that God works things in these nations by his Spirit's interactions with them. If thought so, then would not the same Spirit's influence also teach them many other things of God? What then are these other things they have received, these pagans?

That many nations predating Paul also had this practice in their times, should indicate that long hair doctrine has its roots/source in human nature and not in command of God. If instincts are the source for a long uncut hair practice, could it not be that Paul indicates for the Christian the same source? It is from the nature God places in Man. Paul wants them to yield to the things God placed in human nature - instincts.

That which is from this nature interacts and is reflected differently and is seen varying in various societies. In some societies it is part of religion. In some societies it is not. Some societies choose to ignore impulses leading them to have long hair.

Is ignoring an instinct sinful? If God does not command OT women to have long hair, then do any sin when having short hair? How could this be said to be true? Sin is transgression of law, not transgression of instinct. Man's reactions to things felt instinctually can be influenced by other factors, resulting in variations.

If uncut or long hair is seen in many nations predating Paul, then ask yourself why many nations (far from Israel and the Word of God) had a practice of long or uncut hair. (Ignore that the OT does not command a woman to have either long or uncut hair, and instead just assume it does, as many Apostolics do, for this comparison.) The result should tell that long hair is motivated by that which comes from within the nature which God gave woman. It does not come by command of God. It was not a command of God in the OT. And Paul, a lover of all things OT, would not command the NT saint that which the OT does not, unless he had a revelation or command from God. He does not say he has this.

If it bothers you, like it does most Christians, to look outside of the Bible for evidence for how to live, then consider that Paul thinks the same. He loves the OT, the only Bible he has, and would not teach that which the OT does not.

If he loves the OT Word which does not teach a woman to have long hair, and yet is still observant of the world and its customs, then it should be understood that he does not command a practice of long hair from an OT command perspective, nor NT revelation from God-command perspective. It is more natural/from reason to see that he instructs on compliance with the nature God has placed in Man.

The devil with his short hair practices, is against God and the ways God has placed in Man. He wishes to corrupt any of God's ways. Whether of Word or nature of Man. Paul is against the devil's ways but doesn't command that which God hasn't OT commanded.