[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618545] Part1/3. Esaias: I want to thank you for providing a polite reply.

Quote of me from a previous post: I would change my doctrine if proved wrong. No *one* bothers to take the time to show my line of reasoning wrong. They just say it is wrong but don't provide evidence thereto.

For one example, Esaias says in post 14 "Paul establishes that what is being discussed are the "traditions received" by the church from the apostles. He provides correction regarding the Corinthians' practice, to bring them into conformity with the apostolic traditions concerning head covering, the Lord's Supper, and the conduct of people during the meeting." . I call him out on the lack of evidence for this and he then provides evidence, but continues by saying the following:

[QUOTE]I don't think you understand what "evidence" is, nor what "providing evidence" means. Just because you choose to maintain the opinion you started with, doesn't mean no evidence was provided to you. [QUOTE]

Had the evidence first been provided unprompted, there would have been no need for Esaias to be called out, nor need for his snarky reply. People who don't provide evidence make assumptions of other's knowledge; or conversely, want their opinions believed just because they view themselves as an authority. There is no doubt that Esaias is an excellent authority here on AFF but he is not above the need to show sources/evidence for the opinions shown without evidence in post 14. All who aren't privy to his knowledge then seek proof, not wanting to rely on human opinion alone. He then subsequently gave an excellent, enlightening reply on the unity of opinion of NT believers/preacher. Snarky comments should be left to be used as a last resort. Get snarky with someone snarky, which is not me.

I provided plenty of evidence to show:

1. Paul taught men ought to be uncovered and women covered when praying or prophesying.

It is safe to just re-state scripture using other words. But it doesn't actually take the time to show what Paul wants to be done. I've done so in my commentary. Along with showing how I've shown how currently held views are deficient, with what I call holes. This was done, mostly focussing on the view held by the majority, which I call uncut long. Knowing that your belief is that a woman needs a veil and not believing in uncut long, if you still hold the same view expressed a few years ago, I'll now address some holes in that view.

You will agree that 1Co11 has its view of the order of God's authority, which is based on what is seen at the Beginning. I'm not aware of any other Biblical writer to talk about this principle. Brilliant Paul is the first and only. What does this indicate to us? Paul is introducing something new, which is old as the Beginning, but hasn't been brought out to the open for all to know, v3.

The moment Adam was created it would be expected that he should honour his Creator. Was the needed respect coming from a command or was this deduced from the fact that he should, just because he was much inferior to his Creator? That no command for Adam's respect is seen recorded there, leads to the conclusion that the expected respect wasn't by command but because it was logical/right for Adam to give it. God never commanded respect for his order of authority at the Beginning and this needed respect continues to this day by the same means it is first seen - without command by what comes logically when an inferior is in the presence of a superior.

Yet some will say that this expected respect must now be seen as a command, showing that they think God needs help with the method he used, which he needs no help with. Some will say that God now commands this expected respect in 1Co11, by commanding the keeping of head-symbols. If believed so then God has changed his mind in the method used. He now no longer believes about the needed respect as he did at the Beginning, saying that a command must now be added. This isn't logical. All the parts are the same. God. Man. Woman. They have not essentially changed from the Beginning and it shouldn't be said that God now has added a command he could have given at the Beginning. Had the Lord ever wanted to command co/unco, the logical first place it would be seen is right at the Beginning. And what then of the keeping of symbols, if they aren't commands. Because they aren't commands doesn't change anything about the expectation that they should be shown. The thing which changes is whether they are commands. Which view, command or expectation, agrees most with what is seen in the Beginning? The Beginning is the basis for Paul's thoughts and seeing co/unco as expectation best coincides with what is seen in the Beginning. Seeing the need for co/unco coming about from instincts fits well because instincts shouldn't ever be seen as commands.

Enter Eve, who was created after Adam. From the moment of her creation it must be assumed that she should reverence the one she was created for, showing respect for God's order thereby. She wouldn't have come into existence unless the Lord had wanted to satisfy Adam's lack - no partner for Adam. She was created as a partner, as a helper to him. Was she expected to show respect for the one she was created for because God commanded her to? We have no record from the Beginning of such a command. The respect was a logically known expectation, similar to Adam's needed expectation to respect God. Some say that 1Co11 shows a command for this respect by the keeping of symbols. But, same story, second chapter. God needs no additional help with the ways and means he first showed he used in the Beginning. His wisdom ordained what is shown. If he doesn't command at the Beginning then he shouldn't be seen to command in 1Co11, changing methods, when all the parts are the same as they were at the Beginning. God expects man to respect him. God expects woman to respect her man. But not by command. It is right by logic to do so.

Esaias believes that the needed respect women should show is symbolised by her wearing a veil, only during prayer/prophecy times. Did I get this right, Esaias? In Esaias' view, Paul, rather God, is seen commanding women to wear a veil. If all the parts are as equal as they were at the Beginning, then the symbol Esaias believes is commanded, would have been needed to be worn by Eve, right? Even before the invention of clothing like veils - for she was naked. Or does Eve not need to show respect to God's order by the keeping of symbols because she doesn't have a prayer/prophesy time? (Let's also keep in mind that the needed respect was in effect before the Fall and didn't come about because of the Fall. It came about the moment of her creation.) And what evidence from the Beginning can be shown that a veil was commanded of her? What evidence do we have that a veil was available to her? None is shown. Also, no command for a veil is found anywhere in the OT. If it is commanded for the NT, then it should also be for the OT, for Paul bases his arguments from OT thought. The glaring absence of an OT command for a veil speaks, and all should take heed. But does Paul not speak of veils in 1Co11? Of course, but it should not be seen as by command. Better is to see that Paul/God does not command. Had God commanded in the Beginning or anywhere in the OT then we'd have something to talk about.

The history of Co shows women who practised long hair and the veil. It was a custom all were culturally expected to follow. To go to a place of public worship without a veil would flaunt the rules that most followed by custom. Paul wants the Co Christian to follow the custom that most follow, for reasons similar to the circumcision of Timothy. No one would say that Timothy was commanded to be circumcised according to the Jewish ways, nor should anyone say that the following of a Co custom of veiling by Christians was commanded. If so, it would be from love like Timothy's which "commands", not law.

Had God actually commanded a woman to wear a veil then we would also rightly expect to see the giving of details of the nature of the veil, for women to correctly satisfy the command to cover. We see nothing of the sort, nor the presence of a veil command other than what is misinterpreted from 1Co11. Paul asks, not commands, the keeping of the custom. The conclusions of 1Co11 should coincide with what is seen in the rest of the OT. Paul knows the OT and has based his life on it as the Word of God and wouldn't present views to Co which don't coincide with what had its start at the Beginning, nor not coinciding with the OT. How we interpret 1Co11 should also conincide with what is seen in the OT, not oppose it. The OT didn't command the veil and we shouldn't conclude that Paul does so now for the NT. Views which express this should be closely examined and modified to do away with this. A view can be held of 1Co11 which conforms to the Beginning, the OT and the NT. What is shown in the Beginning happened outside of Covenant and any view of respect for the order of authority should be seen to coincide with any Covenant seamlessly. The Covenant established with Adam commenced after the expected respect for God's order of authority commenced.

If Paul commands a veil in the early verses of 1Co11, then he changes his mind in a later verse, 15. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering (veil). If given, then given by who? God. Apparently, a reader can choose which verse to obey. But it is better to see that Paul commands neither hair nor veil. The OT commands neither and the words Paul uses should not be seen as commands to show alignment with the OT view of it.
Anyone wanting to see the holes of uncut long can read them in my commentary.

continued in 2 of 3