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

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Whoop Harted

My brother owned a vw once. I got it now! We are talking about vintage German cars.

Whoop Harted has chimed in to show support that the iv is nonsense, thinking that majority opinion dictates truth. Is that how doctrine works?

Paul says in 1Co11: 4 "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head." 7 "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man." 14 "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?"

These verses are interpreted to indicate that Paul/God thinks manly long hair is sinful.

Which OT command, seen when reading the only Book Paul covets, would show us that Paul sees the OT to say that manly long hair is sinful? The commands don't exist. Yet, the OT has modelled a long-haired man as a rebel, Absalom. The example of Absalom supports the interpretation.

Yet it would be wrong, short sighted, to say that the Book Paul reads shows that long hair is sinful, using only Absalom. Godly OT men have long hair and are commanded by God to have long hair, contrary to the interpretation of 1Co11 which says it is sinful. The OT also shows commands, which if obeyed, result in men with long hair - Nazirite law.

Thus, by example and commands, the OT that Paul loves, does not show long hair on a man as sinful. Paul would not conclude and teach this. The interpretation of 1Co11 which states it as sinful is a misinterpretation.

Re-read the verses above. What explanation can be given when they seem to indicate that long hair is sinful? If thought that they do, it would lead to a search for an explanation, because the OT does not. The interpretation is contrary to the OT, these verses apparently not. There is an apparent contradiction.

While the OT does not show verses which support the interpretation, it does show many verses referring to those who cover their heads when shamed. When there is no command asking for this head covering response, it is logical to assume it is an instinctive response. This is especially seen when people today, both men and women, have the same response to embarrassment - they want to cover their face/head.

If the shoe fits, wear it. It's yours. Covering from shame with an object is what Paul refers to in v4 and 7. It is a logical, scriptural interpretation of what Paul says, providing an explanation which 'sinful long hair' interpretation does not provide by OT verses for support. It is in agreement, not contradictory to the OT. As such, it is a better explanation.

But contradicting the long held interpretation makes it difficult to accept. Everyone holds the long held dear, not willing to let go for many, many reasons. These reasons prevent the operation of the logic which says it should be accepted.

Some will say 'Not so fast, buddy. What about verse 14, which makes a clear statement about long hair. The iv clearly contradicts what v14 says'. This can't be denied.

Readers of scripture have a dilemma. One interpretation contradicts the OT; one contradicts v14. An explanation must be found.

While true that Paul wrote v14, it is not true that he views it as it is viewed today. He would not at the time of writing, have said v14 is the Word of God. He would not have used it as evidence for the interpretation of his words, in the same way it is done today. You can determine for yourself the value of this fact. He does not have this verse as Word of God evidence for the view that long hair is sinful. If you had stood beside Paul how would you conclude of long hair without this verse?

When many Christians read Mt28.19, they see an obvious contradiction with Ac2.38, yet stand on their head to say that their interpretation of Jesus' own words in the Trinity baptismal formula must be the correct interpretation because they are Jesus' own words/interpretation, in spite of the evidence of many verses pointing in another direction. Mt28.19 shows agreement with another doctrine they hold dear, the Trinity, though Mt28.19 is disagreeing with many clearly shown examples to the contrary. For these reasons, many can not let go of Trinity baptism to embrace NT truth of Jesus name baptism. Similar forces are at work in those who would reject the logic/scripture of the iv.

The rules of Biblical interpretation dictate that when a seeming contradiction in scripture is seen, then a rational explanation must be found because God does not contradict himself. The seeming contradiction is, the only scripture Paul has, the OT, does not show manly long hair as sinful but his words in v14 seemingly say it is. Whichever understanding prevails will lead to the doctrine which dictates practice in those who value scripture and doctrine.

With that said, I would like to point out what is believed to be a historical reality from many cultures and ages. For the most part, men have wanted to have short hair. Many would say this conclusion reflects the truth. This truth comes in those pagans who are far from God and far from Israel who holds the OT Word, which many say are commanding short hair and long hair as sinful. In spite of not having the Word, the majority of these pagans have short hair. This is also true for OT Israel, who also did not have a command for short hair. Thus, the nature of man leads man to have short hair - not commands of God. Man's instinctive desires lead them to have short hair, which instincts are occasionally over-ridden - yet later returning. Man's instincts lead him to do that which God had not commanded - short hair.

This 'having short hair without a command of God' existed and worked in many societies for 4000 years. When Paul wrote 1Co11 it is then seen by some as a command of God, misinterpreted and said to be so in the Christian society, because v14 is in agreement with what is seen in the nature/instincts of men. It is then easily interpreted as a command of God, even when God had not commanded. (Many people have a tendency to desire a black and white world of do's and don'ts, while God instead provides greys, subtle instincts for leading in a certain direction.)

It is my opinion that what Paul refers to in v14 is about instincts. The nature in v14 he refers to is that which God has given, instincts, which man may allow to rule his actions with. It is against this 'nature of short hair' that long hair is considered a dishonour because that is how it is with the majority of men who yield to their instincts. God made Man with a societal nature. If the majority in society yield to their instincts then those who do not follow the majority, rejecting their society's values thereby, are in a place of dishonour Paul refers to. Paul cannot here be thought to refer to a command of God from the OT which doesn't exist. He does not refer to God's opinion which God hasn't expressed, except as expressed in God-given instincts. It is not 'dishonour to God's commands', because the OT Paul reads had not shown dishonour. Paul would not teach contrary to the OT, which contrariness is the result if v14 is said to teach long hair as sinful.

The logic and reason of scripture have been used to present the iv as an interpretation of what Paul says in 1Co11. It is one interpretation of many. If not misrepresenting the Word, then a choice must be made. Accept the sound logic of scriptural interpretation and reject the illogic of the traditional scriptural interpretation. It is hard to reject the traditional because of many ramifications. Yet, those doing so welcome an explanation which does away with discrepancies arising out of misinterpretation. (One: God has not defined what 'long' is, leaving it up to Man to figure out. The result is, Man determines what God says is sinful. Duh. Two: What is normally thought sinful is OK if you want to get closer to God, in the Nazirite vow. Wow, getting closer to God by sinning. Putting away the thought that long hair is sinful does away with these illogical conclusions.)

Come on over to the iv, for a logical, scriptural swim. The water is fine. The iv is a scriptural explanation of a difficult passage. Holding it doesn't violate scriptural principles. All it does is provide a coherent explanation for what the scripture shows, without the illogical conclusions which the ulv and vv show.

But then, I'm human. I could have made a mistake in the methods used to interpret scripture. Show me the wrong I've used, Whoop Harted and Reader, contrary to the many AFF veterans who only say I'm wrong but don't show how so. Do you have the abilities these mockers don't, to disprove the methods and conclusions of the iv? I doubt it. If they can't, then you can't. If possible they would already long ago have done it.

Instead, they'll shout from the sidelines: 'nuts', 'wrong', 'loner'; because that's what human nature says to do when unable to do otherwise. Rational people examine the evidence and adjust doctrine to fit the evidence, even if reneging previously held convictions.

Whoop Harted and Reader, are you rational? Will you accept the facts and reasoning leading to the iv? Are they cleverly crafted lies, sent by Satan to deceive the Church? Or will you continue to hold head covering views which don't agree totally with scripture?

[donfriesen1]

PART 1 of 2.

Many Apostolics preach that 1Co11 teaches that Christian women should have uncut hair. This doctrine's main support is 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. While this English translation does not say 'uncut', the Greek word translated as 'long hair' provides the reason. 'Komao' is Greek for uncut hair.

Are there other verses saying the same? For what it's worth: isn't it true that this is the doctrine's only support? Isn't it also true that the Bible does not provide a story exemplifying a woman with uncut hair? Just saying.

Thus, what v15 boils down to is this: the pagan Greek had a practice which resulted in the formation of a word to describe what was practiced. Their women practiced uncut hair. Effectively then, the practices of pagan people have provided the word Paul uses. Did you get the connection? It is a practice from pagans which provides the main proof for a Christian doctrine. Pagans providing proof for Christian doctrine? This doesn't make sense, yet this is the reality.

Why are the practices of pagans seen as providing the proof for Christian doctrine? Am I the only one that sees something amiss? My Word-based thinking tells me that doctrines, the rational framework providing scriptural structure for Christian obedience actions, should be seen coming from words which God has spoken or at least drawn from words his prophets have spoken, but not from pagan practices.

Yet, Paul uses this word komao when teaching about head covering. It became part of the Word of God and the source of defining what Paul teaches.

Why then is a practice of pagans, seen as the source for defining how a Christian woman should conform her actions for living? Why this source, instead of drawing from the OT, the Book Paul uses as the basis of his other doctrines? Isn't it true that the source for NT doctrines have their foundations in the words and thoughts of the OT? But not this doctrine. It does not have proofs from the OT.

Yet, to spite the pagan source, Paul is seen showing the basis of his thoughts is really from this OT; from the Beginning, in the story of Adam and Eve's creation. When a base is from the OT, then it is also expected that which is built on a base would also be visible there. This is not so with head coverings. The OT has no commands asking for head coverings, let alone details of what the head covering looks like. Doctrine makers rely on 1Co11/the NT, for the evidence for the doctrine drawn from Paul's thoughts. Said another way, the root of the tree is seen in the OT but no trunk or branches, in the times when many minutiae are clearly commanded. The root is God's Order of Authority. From this root comes the tree of head covering. The trunk and branches then, are not visible until 1Co11. Very strange.

This should have raised questions for doctrine makers to answer, which didn't result with them. Not asking/answering it leads to the error of only microscopically examining 1Co11/NT while ignoring anything the OT shows, while Paul says the base is in the OT.

What does the OT show? Paul points to the Beginning, Ge1-3, for the base. We have access to the same scripture he points to for his base. Reading it sees nothing directly of either God's Order of Authority or of head covering. God there commands neither respect for God's Order nor the showing of respect to it by symbols; for either man or woman. This absence continues throughout the whole OT. What then has Paul built his doctrine on? Thin air? God had not spoken a word in the only Book Paul reads, the OT. Shouldn't doctrine be built on the sure words of God? This does not happen this time.

Paul, in the doctrine which is said to be his, did not have the NT to refer to, which those who say this doctrine is Paul's, do. At the time Paul wrote Corinthians, he would not have said it is God's Word. Do you see a problem describing it as his doctrine?

Paul pulls God's Order of Authority from between the lines of Scripture and builds sound doctrine which no one refutes. What Paul says about God's Order of Authority is from good hermeneutics resulting in good theology.

Not only does the Beginning not show words from God's mouth on the topic of a woman's long hair as the head cover, neither does the rest of the OT. 4000 years of scripture-times show nothing concerning it, strangely, very strangely, when it is now taught as a sin doctrine by many Apostolic preachers. They say Paul, who reads the OT for his doctrines, has taught them what they preach. But the OT is silent and could not have taught Paul what they say he holds as doctrine.

What then should be concluded from the words of 1Co11? What is provided as doctrine derived from it, is a scriptural interpretation using hermeneutics which neglects to include the OT to make conclusions. A misinterpretation is the result when all of scripture isn't consulted.

Why then does Paul use the Greek word to teach that a woman should have uncut hair, if the OT did not teach it? An answer will be provided.

Why do pagans practice that which Paul says Christians should do, when they don't have a command of God for it? The Greek word komao existed for a long time in OT-times, during the time when the OT shows no command for it. It can't be that they obey a command of God when the command does not exist in the OT. What has motivated them to practice that which Paul tells a Christian woman to do? What then is the source for Paul's thoughts if Paul uses their word to describe how a Christian woman should act, when the OT doesn't command the same?

Paul had referred to the Beginning as his source. It is there that the source of the pagan practice seen in many societies, including Israel, is found. The answer is there.

PART 2 to follow.

[donfriesen1]

PART 2 of 2.

Ge3.16 "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." God tells Eve that women will have, as a part of their nature, a desire to do what pleases their husband. Long hair is a part of fulfilling this desire. Men love long hair on a woman. Both of their desires are God-given, coming from the nature Man is created with. Both have an instinct leading human life in a certain direction.

When women respond to God-given instincts, to do that which pleases their husband, they show respect to God's Order of Authority. It is this which Paul refers to in 1Co11. Ge3.16 is part of the Beginning Paul makes reference to.

The source for that which motivates the pagan woman to do that which Paul says the Christian woman should do, is in the instincts God gave them. Where is the evidence seen, which would give something firm to build an instincts-head-covering doctrine on? It isn't ever scripturally stated so, to be clearly seen. There is no verse saying instincts drive that which results in showing respect to God's Order of Authority, or that which derives from it - head covering. But the facts of human relationships are seen reflected in Ge3.16, seen by reading between the lines, the same way Paul had done to compose God's Order of Authority doctrine - by reading between the lines. It makes sense that this could be the source for Paul's thought that a Christian woman should have uncut hair, as coming from yielding to instincts. Paul wants Christian men and women to follow their God-given instincts. At the time of writing, Corinth was undergoing a cultural revolution which rejected the veils and long hair which most Corinthian women had practiced for generations. Paul counters the rebellion for the church women he is able to influence with his words.

It is especially pertinent to believe the reason for seeing Paul's use of the pagan word, telling women they should have long hair, when nothing in the OT has indicated another source for the practice in either pagan or Christian, doing so while at the time it is wrongly believed the OT saint practices uncut hair which also wasn't then commanded. This practice is seen to be followed in many pagan cultures. If it makes sense, and another explanation isn't provided, then it may be the right explanation to hold. Why believe another which doesn't make sense and has holes in explanations?

Solid evidence won't be found for the iv, the same as solid evidence won't be found for God's Order of Authority, other than reading between the lines. Even so, it makes sense to believe both it and the iv. God's Order of Authority and head covering doctrine are two peas coming from the same reading-between-the-lines pod.

I must digress. I must now point to that which has been withheld till now. It has to do with the thought that when the pagan refers to uncut hair (in the word/definition of komao) that they do not use the same definition that many Apostolic's ascribe to it. Apostolics take uncut in a strict literal sense - no cutting. To them it is interpreted to mean to not even cut a 1/4" of hair. It is my opinion that this definition was not used as such by pagans. They, who had no religious motivation to use the word as never cutting even a 1/4" of hair, like Apostolics do.

What would have motivated the pagan to do so, who has long hair for adornment purposes, to never cut frizzies from the ends of their long hair, when it would be prettier doing so? 'Pretty' is the reason she has long hair. It has no other biological purpose. If Paul borrows their word, it should be thought that their definition of the use of the word would also be borrowed by him, and no other definition used than the way they have always used it. Why would Paul ascribe another definition than the one commonly used, causing confusion to the Greeks he writes to, using their language? I question if the pagan would refuse to trim the hair-ends, yet would still be described as having uncut hair because the general intent was to have it as long as possible to look attractive. Plz see the link to my commentary, in post 1, for further thoughts on Apostolic treatment of the lexicographer's definitions, as esteemed by them wrongly as being God's definitions.

If the source, for the word Paul uses as defining Christian practice, is found in instincts, also knowing that there are no commands found in the OT for the uncut hair practice, how then should Paul's 1Co11 words be interpreted? Should they be seen referring only to instincts, to that which had not ever been commanded to obey? Does God view the refusal of the influence of instincts as sin? Should Paul be seen now turning into commands that which for 4000 years had only been practiced by some as coming from their instincts, Jew and pagan alike? Would Paul now command that which the OT had not ever commanded, or does he have direction from God, to now codify that which was only practiced from instincts? That scholars say that 1Co11 is the singular most difficult passage to come to a clear understanding on, lends credence that Paul does not clearly codify a command. There is no clear cut 'Thou shalt' or 'Thou shalt not' in 1 Co11. If he attempts to codify, he certainly has made poor use of the great skills and knowledge he possesses. This testifies against the assumption that he does.

It may be thought incomprehensible by some that Paul refers to God-given instincts as the source for head covering practices. Before the iv is discarded for this reason, plz consider the source of what is today practiced as doctrine, but doesn't have solid NT evidence to be doctrine - tithing. Abraham and Jacob seemingly had picked out of thin air the idea they should tithe. It is a great practice for the NT, which fails to have NT evidence sufficient to make it a NT command. In spite of this, it is practiced. Thus, good things need not have commands to see them needing to be practiced. So with instincts. God gave them but didn't command them to be followed. Yet wants them followed, because he designed them to be followed.

Perhaps the greatest obstacle preventing the acceptance of the iv is that it is so completely different from that which has prevailed till now. It has the appearance of being wacko. Yet, you've seen the logic and scripture used to present the iv. Are they flawed? Has Satan inspired the writer, cleverly attempting to deceive the Church to turn away from God's doctrine? Or has the writer exposed weaknesses in Apostolic interpretive methods which should be corrected, resulting in a doctrine more in alignment with what is actually seen in both the OT and the NT?

As it is now, there is a schism in the Apostolic church. One side believes the vv. One side believes the ulv. They, like the iv, are scriptural interpretations attempting to provide an explanation of what the Bible says. Both have errors of interpretation. If both are set aside to accept the logic and scriptural interpretation of the iv, the schism will fade away. The iv will unite the family in this regard, if accepted.

Are there errors in logic used in presenting the iv? If so, the AFF veterans have failed to present it. Draw conclusions from this fact as you desire. I conclude that the iv has the appearance of being irrefutable. Yet, it is early in the game. It may be that someone will show the errors not now seen. Waiting.

[donfriesen1]

What Source?

Logic tells us, if most everything we know is learnt, then it must come from a source. Where is the source of Paul's 1Co11 thoughts? Either Man (individual or society), or God (scripture or direct communication). If the source for the thoughts of 1Co11 aren't seen in OT commands (they aren't) then where is the source? Paul also doesn't have the NT to reference or provide the source of their inspiration.

For Paul's 1Co11 thoughts, let's eliminate self. He loves God and the Word of God. He will not ever be seen fabricating doctrine originating in personal thought. Let's then say what he has learned is from either Man or God. Or, are their other sources for thoughts or facts? Well, yes - Satan, but let's not go there for this topic.

You've seen me chiding and mocking veterans of AFF, when they haven't run with open arms to accept the iv. Perhaps I've been a little too quick, too harsh, in my criticisms of them.

Why do I now say this?

Perhaps the reason for their slow acceptance is the lack of much firm Biblical evidence for the iv. The reason for this lack is, the iv is built in a large part on conjecture. There are no verses directly portraying this head-covering view. It's largely seen, yet not exclusively, by reading between the lines of scripture and of human nature.

Yet, isn't conjecture used with any head-covering view, including the ulv and the vv? Yes. All are built largely, yet not exclusively, on conjecture. Had God given a clear command showing his opinion of the matter, it would have led to one clear conclusion. In the absence of it then, varying conclusions are made, all drawn from emphasizing various parts of the available data, using conjecture to varying degrees.

Paul had started this conjecturing about God's Order of Authority and head covering, by himself using conjecture. He had formulated God's Order of Authority by reading between the lines, doing so from the data seen in the Beginning. Thus, the source for the inspiration of his thoughts are in the OT. Yet, there is no statement from God ever specifically mentioning God's Order of Authority, in the only scripture Paul reads - the OT. Paul reads between the lines of scripture to formulate this doctrine. The source for God's Order of Authority doctrine is Paul - it's Man. (But reducing to the simplest, God, who is the originator of all people.)

Thus, in a sense, Paul has made this doctrine, not God, with God using human agency to achieve his purposes.

And having a doctrine for showing respect to God by head-covering symbols, is a direct by-product of God's Order of Authority doctrine. Without God's Order of Authority, head-covering doctrine would not exist. The primary is usually the foundation for the secondary. (This may explain why no head-covering doctrine is seen to be taught in the OT. No one there had conjectured God's Order of Authority as Paul had done, he being the first. They, not having the foundation, had no need to build, and nothing to build a structure on, had they wanted to.)

Thus, head-covering doctrine only exists because of conjecture. In essence then, head-covering doctrine is also a man-made doctrine. Are you following the reasoning?

If this is indeed so, then how could anyone ever think to say head-covering doctrine is a command of God? This should not ever be said, for the above and other reasons. The source of it is in conjecture.

And both doctrines enter the Word by way of Paul's conjectures, but not necessarily becoming commands by this entering, right? What logic determines that things seen by reading between the lines become commands? God could, but where is the evidence if it is thought he has done so?

If head-covering doctrine was not taught or commanded in the OT, then the OT is not the source for Paul. Conjecture is. Can another source be proven, if this is not thought true?

Perhaps this is the reasoning behind Paul's statement in v16, "we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God". He would have known what he has said is built on conjecture and was not from command of God.

Of 3 views - vv, ulv, and iv - perhaps the vv uses the least conjecture. Clear statements are made about veiling, that which was the custom of pagan Corinthian culture. Yet this veiling practice had also been built on the 'conjecture' of Man. God had not commanded the pagan to veil, nor commanded any in the only Book Paul reads - the OT. Its source is Man's thinking, not God. Does Paul's mention of a human custom then turn custom into a command of God? By the formulators of the vv, the answer is yes.

The ulv, which commands Christian women to have uncut hair, only uses the definition of a word originating in pagan culture, as its proof of a view that 'to cover' means uncut hair. It quotes no OT verse for further proof. Thus, much conjecture is involved in asking a woman to have uncut hair. Its source is Man, not God. God did not coin the Greek word 'komao' - uncut long hair - pagan Man did.

The iv conjectures that the source for both pagan and Jewish long-hair (but not uncut hair) practices (as the head cover) is seen in 'Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you', found in Ge3.16. This is skimpy evidence for a doctrine. The iv's source is in the God-given nature/instincts of Man.

Therefore, if the slow acceptance of the iv is because of much conjecture used to make it, it should not be faulted for using it. Apparently, the topic demands all views to largely use conjecture. Had God himself commanded a practice somewhere, this discussion would not now be happening. He didn't. And so, Man conjectures.

No one should then say they have the only correct head-covering doctrine, when all are built largely on conjecture. Yet, does this lead to 'throwing caution to the wind', then to concede to any view locally-taught, and not accepting a view with the least amount of objectionable conclusions? Logic says this 'throwing of caution' should not be done. God-given logic says to use logic to find the least-objectionable conjectured-view, if God does not clearly state a view; and to hold this dear.

More and more I am convinced that my leaving the ulv, for the iv, is the most logical, scriptural step to take. The acknowledging of all the data has convincingly shown so. The source for Paul's 1Co11 thoughts are conjecture.

Any conclusion then, made on head-covering, should use data from both the OT and NT, to formulate a doctrine consistent with both. The iv does this, while the ulv and vv do not. The OT does not show support for the ulv, while containing data contradicting it. The OT does not show support for the vv, resulting in a NT-only head-covering view, when any correct view would be seen applying to all ages.

[donfriesen1]

Readers have seen chiding and mocking of the veterans of AFF, when they haven't run with open arms to accept the iv. Perhaps I've been a little too quick, too harsh, in my criticisms of them.

Why do I say this?

Perhaps the reason for their slow acceptance is the lack of much firm Biblical evidence for the iv. The reason for lack of firm evidence is, the iv is built in a large part on conjecture. There are no verses directly portraying this view. It's largely seen, yet not exclusively, by reading between the lines.

Yet, isn't this true with any head-covering view, including the ulv and the vv? Yes. All are built largely, yet not exclusively, on conjecture. Had God given a clear command showing his opinion of the matter, it would have led to one clear conclusion. In the absense of it, many varying conclusions are made from the available data.

Paul started all this conjecturing, by himself using conjecture. He formulates God's Order of Authority by reading between the lines, doing so from the data seen in the Beginning. There is no statement from God ever specifically mentioning God's Order of Authority, in the only scripture Paul reads - the OT. Thus, in a sense, Paul has made this doctrine, not God.

And the doctrine, to show respect to God by head-covering symbols, is a direct by-product of God's Order of Authority. As such, when without God's Order of Authority, head-covering doctrine would not have existed. (This may explain why no head-covering doctrine is seen to be taught in the OT. No one, Paul being the first, had there conjectured God's Order of Authority. If you don't have the foundation, you have nothing to build a structure on.) Thus, head-covering doctrine exists only because of conjecture. Without conjecture then, head-covering doctrine would not exist. In essence then, head-covering doctrine is also a man-made doctrine. Are you following the reasoning?

If 'both God's Order of Authority and head covering doctrine are seen by conjecture' is indeed so, then how could anyone ever think to say they are a command of God? This should not ever be said, for God usually commands that which he wants Man to do.

Perhaps this is the reasoning behind Paul's statement in v16, "we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God". He would have known what he has said is built on conjecture and not command of God.

Of 3 views - vv, ulv, and iv - perhaps the vv uses the least conjecture. Clear statements are made about veiling, that which was the custom of Corinthian culture. Yet the veiling custom itself also had been built on the 'conjecture' of Man. God had not commanded them to veil, nor commanded any in the only Book Paul reads - the OT. It is Man-made.

The ulv, which commands Christian women to have uncut hair, uses only the definition of one word, which originated in pagan culture, as proof of its view. It quotes no other verse for proof. Thus, much conjecture is involved in commanding a woman to have uncut hair.

Therefore, if the slow acceptance of the iv is because of much conjecture used in formulating it, it should not be faulted for it. Apparently, the topic demands all to largely use conjecture.

No one should then say they have the only correct head-covering doctrine, when all are built on conjecture. Yet, does this lead to 'throwing caution to the wind' to accept any view locally held, and not accepting the view with the least amount of objectional conclusions - the iv? Logic says this throwing of caution should not be done.

AFF veterans read these posts, hoping to catch any illogical comments, to then pounce, to criticize the iv. While smart enough to see when lack of logic is presented, they fail to show being smart enough to accept, whole hog, the iv. Doing so shows something is suppressed and something other than logic is at work in them.

More and more I am convinced that my leaving the ulv for the iv is the most logical step to take.

In spite of its scriptural support and great use of reason, the iv is vilified by those who hold views with scriptural error and lack of logic. Alas, such is life.

The writer of Ps 19 uses conjecture, saying 'the heavens declare the glory of God.' They themselves are silent, yet still speak when pondered on. Those who read between the lines of Creation, see God. Conjecture becomes the Word of God by its inclusion in Ps19.

Paul condemns pagans when they fail to use conjecture. This resulted in sin, Ro1.18-23, when they fail to use the proper conclusions of the conjecture of Creation to conclude about God's eternal power and Godhead. Conjecture becomes the Word of God by its inclusion in Ro1.

None of those from Adam to Moses were commanded not to make idols. Those who had refused conjecture may have been led to sin against what was not a command. Sin against conjecture or against the image of God which provies the ability to conjecture?

It should not be thought unsual that any head covering doctrine is built using conjecture, or that some doctrines use conjecture to a greater degree. There will always be variation of use.

Using conjecture leads to the glory of God, including conjecture of scripture. Yet what is learned from conjecture need not necessarily be commanded of God.

God designed Man with conjecture abilities. He is saddened when Man doesn't use what he provides.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I know I didn't want to reply to your stupidity. I even just mentioned this in a text to a brother a mere minute ago. But after reading your insane ramblings, I just felt the need to put you on full blast. You are an ecclesiastical pterodactyl. IV UV, who can keep track of all that mess. Anyone who is stuck to be around your presence I pitty. People must see you and run like their heads are on fire. Paul taught from conjecture? Are you out of your ever lovin mind? The Apostle Peter called Paul's letters scripture for crying out loud! But, we are comforted by the knowledge that Peter also mentioned, Bozos as yourself in the very same scripture verse. Saying that the unlearned and unstable twist Paul's epistles, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. Pages and pages of absolute religious stupidity, which you horrifyingly have bought into. Because you have been way too long in an ecclesiastical oven. Just stick a fork in you, because you are thoroughly done. You're as blind as they come, and all your hopes and dreams of being a minister is far gone. Now all you have going for you is to plead with us to answer your sorry postings. Talking smack, about the AFF veterans? You religious toad. For Paul to teach the early church from his opinion, or as you put it conjecture calls the entire teachings of Paul into question.

You are Paul's enemy, just like any other individual who have attacked Paul throughout the ages. Nothing new bud, the whole Paul was a fraud isn't a new teaching. But an old one. That Paul revamped the teachings of Jesus to come up with his own doctrines.

Putting someone like you in a Bible study with novices is like giving a loaded rifle to a deranged psychopath. Give it up already, no one cares about holding a discussion with you, other than mocking you from Dan to Beersheba.

I can't even tell you to repent because you are so messed up. I mean you aren't even demon possed, because no demon in their right mind would possess you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

to never cut frizzies from the ends of their long hair, when it would be prettier doing so?

It blows my mind, to see how individuals become beauticians and hair stylists when discussing the hair issue. Also where did this Bozo learn Greek? Pagan words??? Seriously? The Bible has apostles and followers of Jesus with PAGAN NAMES!!! Don, you are an ecclesiastical nincompoop. The Greek language was used to translate the Old Testament 200 years before Jesus Christ. Jesus quoted from the LXX.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I know I didn't want to reply to your stupidity. I even just mentioned this in a text to a brother a mere minute ago. But after reading your insane ramblings, I just felt the need to put you on full blast. You are an ecclesiastical pterodactyl. IV UV, who can keep track of all that mess. Anyone who is stuck to be around your presence I pitty. People must see you and run like their heads are on fire. Paul taught from conjecture? Are you out of your ever lovin mind? The Apostle Peter called Paul's letters scripture for crying out loud! But, we are comforted by the knowledge that Peter also mentioned, Bozos as yourself in the very same scripture verse. Saying that the unlearned and unstable twist Paul's epistles, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. Pages and pages of absolute religious stupidity, which you horrifyingly have bought into. Because you have been way too long in an ecclesiastical oven. Just stick a fork in you, because you are thoroughly done. You're as blind as they come, and all your hopes and dreams of being a minister is far gone. Now all you have going for you is to plead with us to answer your sorry postings. Talking smack, about the AFF veterans? You religious toad. For Paul to teach the early church from his opinion, or as you put it conjecture calls the entire teachings of Paul into question.

You are Paul's enemy, just like any other individual who have attacked Paul throughout the ages. Nothing new bud, the whole Paul was a fraud isn't a new teaching. But an old one. That Paul revamped the teachings of Jesus to come up with his own doctrines.

Putting someone like you in a Bible study with novices is like giving a loaded rifle to a deranged psychopath. Give it up already, no one cares about holding a discussion with you, other than mocking you from Dan to Beersheba.

I can't even tell you to repent because you are so messed up. I mean you aren't even demon possed, because no demon in their right mind would possess you.

Thank you!!

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I know I didn't want to reply to your stupidity....IV UV, who can keep track of all that mess...For those not in the know: iv = instincts view. ulv = uncut long-hair view. vv = veil view. Hope this helps.

Paul taught from conjecture? Conjecture: is what I call reading between the lines. Most Christians do this for themselves to understand scripture, when the scripture doesn't give details. For instance, John Baptist says Jesus is the Lamb of God. That's all he said, and he doesn't provide details of this. We put on our thinking caps to conjecture conclusions of what this meant. We conjecture that John B speaks of Jesus as a Passover Lamb which will be sacrificed so the Angel of the Lord would not stop at our house. Even you will conjecture I refer to the Exodus, when I have not used the word. John B said nothing of Jesus as a type of Passover Lamb but we all would say that is what he meant - because we all, you included, use conjecture.

Your accusations of my using conjecture are thus only because you have nothing else to accuse me with. Yet you want to criticize, even if it is unjust. Thus you yourself expose to all readers what you are. Plz do continue to do so.

The Apostle Peter called Paul's letters scripture for crying out loud! 2 Peter 3:15. You insinuate I don't call Paul's writings scripture, by your saying this. Plz quote what I have said which leads you to believe so. Or stop using low-life methods to discredit others.

But, we are comforted by the knowledge that Peter also mentioned, Bozos as yourself in the very same scripture verse. Saying that the unlearned and unstable twist Paul's epistles, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. Just saying so doesn't make it true of me. Most would show why it is they think it so of me. Reader: Dom will criticize but not take the time to explain why he criticizes, in attempts to show the error of what I contend for. Most sincere responders would supply facts and thoughts.

Just stick a fork in you, because you are thoroughly done. I like this analogy. It's cute. I may use it some time.

You are Paul's enemy, just like any other individual who have attacked Paul throughout the ages. Nay, though you say it is so. I quote Paul and encourage others to believe Paul, but not by misinterpreting what he says. The ulv and vv misinterpret the scripture. See my commentary which outlines how they do so. The link is in post 1.

Nothing new bud, the whole Paul was a fraud isn't a new teaching. But an old one. That Paul revamped the teachings of Jesus to come up with his own doctrines. Plz quote me, to show where it is that you think I say Paul is a fraud.

Reader: Dom will not reply with this quote. What Dom does is exaggerate with insinuations, when he has nothing solid to smear with. What Dom does is what those who have no real arguments do, when they want to slander.

Those who have something to say bring real arguments to the forefront.

Oh, is Dom replying, when he had said he's finished with this thread? What can be seen as so important to bring Dom out?

It's good to see that you read my posts.

My address is 625 Kildare av East. Winnipeg, MB. I provide this should you want to throw rocks through my house windows. We have rocks in Canada, so you need not bring any. But if you want to slash my car tires, it would be best if you brought a knife along, or a way to purchase one when you get here. My car is usually in the garage, so also bring a jimmy to pry the locked door.

As usual, I'm disappointed what you comment with, as only opinion without fact. You again demonstrate that you wish to be believed by all, without providing evidence why others should do so; such as scripture or logical conclusions. I'm still hoping for the day when you will provide logical reasons/scripture to disprove the many points which the iv makes. I know you've got it in you to do so. Plz spare us the drivel you usually provide - factless opinion. It is a waste of resources.

Readers will see the well thought-out conclusions of the iv. They see the scriptures used to support it. Readers see the lack of scripture or use of logical conclusions which the veterans of AFF, such as yourself, do not provide to discredit the iv. Those who like to use reason and scripture will be persuaded to believe the iv. Those who like to use slander, innuendo, vitriol, will be persuaded not to by your rants.

Everybody say 'God bless Dom'. God truly loves Dom.

Only the strong survive, Evangelist. Determine to be strong in Jesus.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Bowas

Thank you!!

Welcome to the thread Bowas.

My hope for you is that you will add some meaningful theological thoughts to this thread.