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

[diakonos]

So, your (former) pastor(s) rejected your doctrine and sat you down… is that what this thread is all about?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by diakonos

So, your (former) pastor(s) rejected your doctrine and sat you down… is that what this thread is all about?

Ah hah! Someone reads between the lines!

You are not the first to say something similar. Esaias also has. And then there is my good buddy Dominic Benincasa, bless his heart.

I will respond later.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I will respond later.

No need

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by diakonos

No need

donfriesen1 had said "I will respond later."

Diakonos then said "No need".

donfriesen1 replies: I don't mind to do so.

You've raise a pertinent point. Readers themselves may be or have been involved in something similar.

Others may be curious to see a response.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by diakonos

So, your (former) pastor(s) rejected your doctrine and sat you down…is that what this thread is all about?

My hat's off to you, Diakonos. You exhibit great reading-between-the-lines abilities!

Does your reading-between-the-lines ability extend further than just this thread; into the scriptures? No doubt it does.

The NT teaches, seen without needing any reading-between-the-lines abilities, that disagreements are allowed on some doctrines. Some Pastors do not allow this disagreement, teaching/practicing otherwise. They may think their role as a leader allows this, and makes it imperative for them to do so. Instead, Pastors should embrace the NT teaching, if they don't. Paul does so - contrary to some Pastors: see Ro14; 15.1-7. The practice/thought that shows all must be in agreement with everything their Pastor teaches is not what Paul teaches.

Back to reading-between-the-lines abilities in reading of scripture.

An example of a main pillar of the majority-held ulv is found in 1Co11.15. It mentions 'long hair', whose Greek origin means 'long uncut hair'. This word-meaning is the core proof of the majority held view of an Apostolic woman's head-covering doctrine, right?

Have you also then discerned, by your reading-between-the-lines abilities, that this proof is actually from a practice of a pagan nation, far removed from Israel and the Word of God? This results, by a reading-between-the-lines, that a pagan society provides the foundation stone for Apostolic doctrine, through a word pagan language invented. The word/thought behind it does not come from the OT. Well, yes, the word is in the NT but its origins and meaning are from a pagan society. Has God borrowed an idea from pagans to insert into his Word? [gagging/sputtering sounds heard]. Yet, the concept does not originate in the OT. Add to this the important fact that the OT says nothing similar to the idea this word conveys, by way of commands or examples. Nothing. Paul then - the lover of this OT - would not believe this idea as a doctrine. He would base his NT/1Co11 thoughts firmly on what he has seen in the OT, right? A reading-between-the-lines ability is then needed to discern 'the why' Paul takes a word/definition from pagans which isn't found in the OT. The iv provides the 'why'.

Have you also then discerned by your reading-between-the-lines abilities, that that which is said to be sinful for a man by the interpretation of 1Co11 alone (repeated for emphasis, 1Co11 alone) is by this alone? For, long hair has no OT command against it. In fact, it shows holy men commanded of God to have long hair, contrary to the Apostolic interpretation. Paul, the lover of this OT, would base any of his thoughts on what he has seen about it in the OT, right? (I suppose then, said facetiously, he wasn't Apostolic, because Apostolics aren't ever thought wrong about anything.) This makes the 'sinful long hair doctrine' a misinterpretation which Paul would not present. Have you also discerned the same by your abilities?

I could go on and on about inconsistencies of the ulv/vv Apostolic doctrine and many other things seen by reading between the lines. Apostolics ignore these, saying they have a scriptural doctrine which, while scriptural, is based on inconsistencies and misinterpretation, much like Trinitarian's inconsistent misinterpretation of Mt28.19. And so, Apostolics will go their merry way, just like Trinitarians do. Ignoring.

What you correctly discern by your ability, is what I have experienced in the 'rejection' of the truth-claims I have made in their presentation to multiple Apostolic teachers and preachers. As has been largely also shown here by AFF veterans, they have chosen to ignore its presentation, but not yet to refute its claims. I had hoped at the very least, that efforts to refute and expose any iv errors would have taken place. Why don't Apostolics, in multiple times and people, defend the Faith and show the error of the iv? I conclude it is because it can't be shown wrong. These veterans would have already done so, I assume, if possible. Perhaps, after all is said and done, the iv actually is truth? Certainly, those who style themselves as holding the truth ["We've got (all) the truth" is the Apostolic mantra] - would jump all over one of their own, me, who presents doctrine exposing and contradicting a favourite doctrine. Instead: they ignore; which is exactly what Trinitarians do. Trinitarians do not accept the evidence; nor do Apostolics. Neither want to do so, in spite of obvious need to.

And will you, Diakonos or reader, then also take up the banner, marching forward with those who choose-to-believe-without-inconsistencies, bearing the shame that comes thereby from the majority? Will you also embrace being ignored by the ignorers who are the majority? A main reality God experiences with humanity is ignoring. Come on over to the iv side, to be like the Lord.

In spite of claims to love truth and walk in the Word, both Oneness and Trinitarian people exhibit the same thing, in my experience. It is difficult for any of these to change doctrinal views because of the ramifications surrounding it. Central is pride. It is hard to recant a previous stand, taken and defended and rebuking those who don't. Also prominent is the backlash which is known would be experienced from long-established church friends.

You say, "is that what this thread is all about?". Yes, the reason for this thread is partially about what you refer to and is partially the answer to 'the why' of the thread. Is the reason for the tread coming across as focussed against one preacher? I trust not. Has nothing I have said point to the fact that I present an interpretation of scripture which more rationally addresses the facts the Bible presents? If so, then I have failed as a communicator, which is a possibility. I'm human. Or rather, that which I have presented hasn't been grasped/accepted by readers, for reasons not revealed. I suggest the latter is the real reason.

I do not experience the "(former) pastor(s)"experience as you have described. Do you wish to insinuate that everything written in this thread has come about because of rejection of Pastoral authority? You seemingly refer to this, in a heavy-handed Pastor has "sat you down" comment, suggesting such a thing. That any heavy-handedness responses to some people's presentation of doctrine happens, may be contrary to what Paul teaches in Ro14. Paul there presents a teaching showing an authorization to believe differently about "doubtful things". There are many Apostolic preachers ignoring the iv, exactly like the Trinitarians who ignore while rejecting Jesus-name baptism scriptures.

See also: related scriptural thoughts on Ro14 + 15: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing Not many topics have words covering more than 1 chapter. This topic does but receives little to no attention. Why this one does not needs explaining. Humans are so good at ignoring.

[donfriesen1]

Whose responsibility is it to correct mistakes of the past? Can past mistakes be ignored as happening, going forward?

Should past erroneous presentations of misinterpretation of scripture be glossed over, pretending it never happened and the mistake ignored as if never having happened when going forward?

Imagine the confusion a congregation might have in the hearing of new concepts contradicting past concepts, but being done without any explanation of the past error.

Those who have preached, taught, and practiced a misinterpretation of scripture, have what responsibility when they discover they have preached misinterpreted scripture?

Jer1.9,10 "the Lord said to me: “Behold, I have put My words in your mouth...to throw down, to build”

Jeremiah's role was both to destroy and build. Preach against false doctrine and preach true doctrine. The NT preacher's role is the same. Expose error and reveal truth.

If the preacher thinks 'If I do an about-face on a doctrine I have long preached, I will undermine and discredit the authority of all I have ever preached. Therefore, I can not now represent myself as a preacher who has made a mistake on what I preached in the past. People will then question everything I have ever preached if I do so. So, for the sake of those things which I have correctly preached, I can not now publicly proclaim that which I formerly said was truth is now wrong. Some may fall to the way-side if I do so, if I recant a past misinterpretation.'

[By that last paragraph will be seen the importance of preaching the Word, and not opinions or personal convictions as if they are the Word. Those who have always looked to the Word for faith, and not the preacher, will never be swayed when having a preacher doing so, even in the face of revealing they have been wrong about a past misinterpretation. The faith in the Word in a new correct interpretation will smooth disruptions caused by changes. God's Word has life for healing.]

Any hearer's free will is not violated when truth is presented by another to correct their past errors.

Those who think so may mask the past for their own present benefit. Covering over the past-sharing of misinterpretation by not now openly proclaiming so in the present, may be done for reasons of pride. Not revealing the error of the past may be to hide being seen as preaching an error, for personal pride reasons.

Truth is of more importance than personal pride. Truth is of more importance than protecting the public image of roles which people play, even if it is a role given by God. Let the chips fall where they may in presenting truth. Should any fall away from doing so, it is by personal choices. We know how?-that the old prophet of 1Kg13 lied, except by his own telling of his mistake.

Peter owned-up to past errors he had held, his wrong attitudes towards Gentiles. He did not hide the errors of this to maintain the appearance of being a God-called preacher. Wouldn't he have been embarassed to be shown that his attitude did not line up with God's? He had even fought God himself when God was telling it to him, saying, 'not so Lord. I won't kill and eat'. He must have been embarassed. He eventually swallowed his pride when he reported to his peers, 'who was I to resist. What I had long stood for as a Biblical command, I put aside, when God showed me his views of it.'

God represents Israel as his chosen people. Doing so, he does not discredit his own choice by hiding the many frequent errors of his chosen. They were called to be a kingdom of priests, a nation-messenger of the truth of the one true God. They failed at this. God does not hide their many, many errors from public view though they have sinned as his choice. Instead, he publishes it.

Preachers should not hide the past error of their presentations of misinterpretation from their congregations. People respect, and not dishonour, those who openly fess up. Public confession is applicable in situations involving public sins, and so, doctrinal errors presented publicly should be corrected publicly.

Should any fall-off from the Faith of God because someone makes a public correction of a past misinterpretation, then they bear their own responsibilities in doing so, because it is an exercise of their own free will. Doing the right thing is always the right thing to do, both for the preacher who has preached misinterpretation and for the one who had previously believed the preacher who now is correcting it. The correction of past mistakes by one, does not absolve another from not doing the right thing.

Right must be done in spite of any negative results others potentialy may or may not have. (Why do we usually first assume the negative result?)

[donfriesen1]

Ponder this.

Should 1Co11 be interpreted isolated from the OT? Would Paul, the knowledgable ex-fanatically-zealous rabbi of OT ways, ignore anything which the OT shows and says, when formulating doctrine he shows is rooted in it?

He references the Beginning in 1Co11. Anyone examining what he references sees no directly-relating words or statement made by God about the subject 1Co11 speaks on. This is strange when it is expected they would be there. Paul seemingly has pulled thoughts out of the thin air.

But not really.

He has read in the Beginning, and his keen observation skills read between the lines, to tell him that God is saying something. He deduces thoughts taken from events, but not from statements or commands from words of God. He reads between the lines, of something having to do with the order of God's authority.

Logic tells him: If Eve is created for Adam's purposes, then she should be subordinate to him. If Adam is created by God's desires, then Adam should see himself as created for God and subservient to God. Yet no directly spoken-words in the Beginning show this reality coming from God's mouth. It is true nonetheless.

Paul, the first Bible writer ever to do so, has extracted God's-order-of-authority truth from reading between the lines about Man's creation.

What Paul speaks of in 1Co11, when he speaks of God's order of authority, is something that he and not God, has made up. But that does not lessen the reality that it is a principle all should live by. Also not spoken of by God there in the Beginning is anything about head-coverings. Does God think Man is sinful when not doing something he hasn't commanded? (Plz do not make conclusions on just these two sentences. There is more to consider on the subject.)

God's order of authority should still be held true by all God-fearers even though it is discovered by a man and had not been commanded in the Beginning by God. It is undeniably true logic. And what also of the hair/veils, that which also had not been directly mentioned in the Beginning?

What Paul teaches in the NT should be in alignment with OT thought on the subject of hair/veils. He loves the OT, which is the only Word he holds in his hands. He would die for the OT. He would not NT-teach contrary to that which the OT taught/exemplified.

The OT had not taught that which the majority of Apostolics say is taught by Paul. This can't be proved wrong by Biblical evidence. What is believed by them about head-covering is almost exclusively derived from the NT. The OT is largely silent on woman's hair/veils doctrine. It also does not show manly long hair as unfavourable. But don't take my word for these statements. Check it out to determine its factualness.

What Paul has said in 1Co11 is misinterpreted by Apostolics to indicate a woman's need for uncut hair and man's need for short hair. God had commanded neither in the OT, the OT which Paul references as the basis for his 1Co11 thoughts.

When the above had been previously stated in this thread, the luminaries/veterans of AFF did not deny the truth of it.

Those today microscopically examining 1Co11 for doctrine should more correctly also include/interpret its contents alonside the light of the OT. Paul would have used the light of this OT as the source for his doctrines, right? The NT was not yet to use. Isn't it also seen in 1Co11 that he does so? Yes.

The OT lays truth-foundations for NT doctrine. Any church doctrine should agree with what both the NT and OT have to say on the matter. Many Apostolics, of which I am one (according to my agreement, by thought and action, with Jn3.5 and Ac2.38) largely ignore the OT or twist it to show it in agreement with a misinterpretation of 1Co11.

[Amanah]

Per Don: "Paul seemingly has pulled thoughts out of the thin air... He reads between the lines... What Paul speaks of in 1Co11, when he speaks of God's order of authority, is something that he and not God, has made up."

Don implies that Paul fabricated God's order of authority, which contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:3, where Paul says, "But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." Paul is not presenting his own ideas but rather teaching on divine authority and order.

Additionally, the statement "What Paul teaches in the NT should be in alignment with OT thought on the subject of hair/veils" is misleading. While the NT should align with OT principles, Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians 11 are based on the creation narrative and the Lord's teachings, which provide a framework for understanding authority and roles.

The Bible encourages believers to examine scripture carefully (Acts 17:11) and to test teachings against the Word (1 Thessalonians 5:21). A thorough study of 1 Corinthians 11 in its context, considering both the OT background and the NT teaching, is necessary for a balanced understanding.

Don projects his own approach of making it up as he goes on the Apostle Paul.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don projects his own approach of making it up as he goes on the Apostle Paul.

Dear Sister,

It is much worse than that.

Take another look at this post:

https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...&postcount=375

Notice these quotes:

I cannot deny what I've been shown.

Don claims he was shown this understanding, that is, his Instinct View of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. And, we might wonder, who showed Don this view?

From the same post:

Yet I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ who has given me the iv understanding...

The Lord Jesus personally gave Don the IV understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Don claims to have received personal and private revelation from the Lord Jesus (he makes it clear that he is the only person he knows of who believes this view in the post shared in the link above).

Effectively, Don is claiming Apostolic Authority on par with Paul, who received the Gospel by revelation of Jesus Christ, according to Galatians 1:11-12.

The problem with this, is Paul eventually did confer with the Apostles in Jerusalem to make certain he hadn't been running in vain (Galatians 2:1-2). And he did so privately, so as to not cause division or confusion. And Paul found out his Gospel was identical to the Gospel preached by the Twelve.

Don has no one with whom he may confer, apparently, besides us few remaining posters here at AFF, and we have all rejected his view, and yet, he insists he hasn't run, and is not running, in vain.

This is the very definition of heresy*, and is the very reason Paul admonishes us to reject such people from leadership (Titus 3:10).

*https://biblehub.com/greek/141.htm

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Per Don: "Paul seemingly has pulled thoughts out of the thin air... He reads between the lines... What Paul speaks of in 1Co11, when he speaks of God's order of authority, is something that he and not God, has made up."

Hi, Amanah. Welcome back.

I had hoped your acuity/discernment abilities would be better than what is shown here. You quote me correctly, and I seemingly imply a conclusion that 'Paul fabricates out of nothing' the concepts he presents. Yet when I used the word "seemingly" I thought that readers would clue in to what only has an apparent appearance of being made up. Thus, I had not really meant that 'Paul fabricates out of nothing'. He pulls it out of the Beginning scriptures.

Did you not read the 7th para from post 517, which post I presume you reply to in 518? It says "Paul, the first Bible writer ever to do so, has extracted God's-order-of-authority truth from reading between the lines about Man's creation."

And what about that next sentence, where I say "But not really." You have not included it! Was this a purposeful omission? Thus I question your acuity/discernment abilities.

Has anything I have ever written not shown that Paul refers to the OT/Beginning as the basis for his thoughts? If I have said so once I've said so a dozen times. Yet here you reply to indicate I say the opposite. I'm perplexed as to why anyone would do so. Being one of many humans, who usually think negatively as a first reaction, this raises negative thoughts of the motives of one who says I haven't said something, when I have said so many times. Why would do you so here, Amanah? Plz take away the negativity my imagination conjures, by providing for readers your motivations in so doing.

Of course. I 100% agree. He uses his deductive abilities reading the OT/Beginning to make truth conclusions. What he had read there had not expressed in simple direct statements clearly stating the concepts he presents in 1Co11. Saying this same thing another way: Where in the OT is there a sentence or direct command which clearly shows the concept of God's Order of Authority? It doesn't exist. Paul is the first ever Biblical writer to do so. Seemingly he has made it up. Said another way: he is the first to discover and teach this, that which he has learnt by deductive reasoning. You've ignored the gist of the totality of what was said, instead zeroing in on only one little phrase, "made up". Seeing you do so causes suspicions of wrong motivations.

But thx anyway for the reply.

Yet nothing you say here provides a thought or a why, which shows how what I said is misleading. Why are none included? Did you feel compelled to say something negative but couldn't think of anything substantive? You've written in AFF weekly for years and should have reservoirs full of substantive. Why is nothing coming forth here?

Plz provide some details to show where you see the Lord himself teaches on hair/veils. 1Co11 is Paul's teachings. God includes it in the Word as his Word because he wants the concepts taught in the Church.

None could agree more to this than I do. And yet, you hold to the vv, which is not described/commanded in the OT you say should be considered. Thus your practice doesn't reflect what you teach. That's not how consideration is supposed to work.

Of course! What I write are not anyone else's opinions. I write what are my own and not anothers. So, your point in saying that was what?

.