[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

PART 3/3

Yet no commands are seen for co/unco at the Beginning, nor in any Covenant, unless the NT alone is said to command (which I believe to be an error of interpretation). Yet 1Co11 is seen by some to be commanding compliance. It makes no sense that something which started in the Beginning without command, should now be seen to be commanded. Nothing has changed about the 3 players which would result in the need of a change from the way things were done at the Beginning. What is shown there came about before any covenant and any changes in covenants should not be seen to affect, by change, what was seen in the Beginning. God didn't command then and he shouldn't be seen to command now. Do you agree that the Lord never commanded co/unco at the Beginning?

Plz define nature. You say clearly stated and any conclusions made must be done with a clear definition of what nature is. The way the word nature is seen affects what Paul is thought to say. Does nature command? Is what is seen 'by nature' then a command of God. However you view the meaning of nature it still doesn't translate to seeing it as a command. See page 28 in the commentary.

True indeed.

Not entirely true. I've used scripture, as you have, which are God's opinions.

Most of my posts are stand alone and aren't parts of a series.

You fabricated this allegation without consulting me. I certainly believe that Paul speaks with apostolic authority most of the time, but not always. Ask and I will provide examples. What you say of me is wished by you to be true but it isn't. What I do provide is a view that what Paul is said to say can be seen another way. You have difficulty agreeing to any view other than your view, as I do too. I invite you to take a step back to view an alternative view which is scriptural derived. They do no violence to that which are seen in He6 to be the first principles of the church. If you persist to hold your views, you then show you are content to hold a view which has holes. I'm not content to hold views with holes. Plz, if you change your mind about continuing, then expose the holes in the instincts view.

Well, how bout we not rehash a thread we've left. Concentrate on what's on hand.

Absolutely not true. Rather, you say this because some of our conclusions clash making you think from that, that I do not wish to conform to Biblical views. Rather say this, than to say I wish not to live in conformity to the Bible.

Is this an attempt to lump all of my thoughts into one pile you claim is garbage? People would expect something different from someone such as your self. Such generalizations smack of bigotry. If you are frustrated by some of my views, then that may be understandable. But generalizations such as made here are unacceptable.

We all interpret scripture from what we see and from where we stand. Scripture comes to us from other languages and cultures which cause difficulty in understanding at times. If my views don't coincide with your views, what difference does it make? They are scriptural views. If they contradict your views then it becomes necessary to examine the methods used by both sides to see if they are logically derived or if they contradict established doctrinal views. If I expose a hole in any reasoning process then care should be taken to re-examine it. If I rub you the wrong way with my views it may be only because they don't agree with the views you thought were well established, causing feelings of exasperation in you. Are you trying to indicate that only your views are ones to be held? Do you not allow others to have correct views from the vast pool of truth called the Bible, which are contrary to yours?

I'd bet that this is a great exaggeration of what is really seen. Many times I've shown agreement with others by stating 'agreed' or 'true' or 'yes' which I now wonder have ever been said of my words? I might now develop an insecurity complex because no one ever agrees with anything I say. Everyone thinks my whole life is wrong. Benincasa will now join in with an strong amen.

You imply my views are absurd without specifying, leaving me defenceless against my opponent. Why not fight fair and give specifics when serious allegations are made. I want to be known as one who fights fair, because truth is fair to all. You thus establish yourself as the authority which should never be contradicted. Is this how you want to be seen? You've taken a cheap shot against someone you see as beneath you. My views have been derived from the scriptures. On this I stand. Let's put the vitriol to the side and press on, if you would plz, and show errors in my thinking in a systematic logical method, done without character assassination.

Let's get specific of these absurdities you speak of, and give me a chance to respond in the thread they are found, instead of your just making an accusation here long after the fact, and not giving a chance to respond. It is not gentlemanly to do as you've without chance to respond. Alternately, withdraw the accusation made here in a post here.

I had hoped that you would have, as a truth seeker, taken serious consideration of the holes shown of other's views in my 1Co11 commentary. I realise this would take much effort which you may not be willing to give. No one should be faulted for not doing so for these reasons, though it is hoped that you will do so. As such when not doing so you give indication that any view but yours is worthy of consideration in spite of allegations with evidence contrary. You have yet to give serious rebuttal to many of my views, again standing on the sidelines shouting 'they're wrong' but not taking the time to show by reason and Word how so. Oh, well. What you believe and propagate as truth isn't fine by me. I'm trying to reach you, hoping for your consideration which may allow you to more correctly portray truth. Plz do so.

Amen and Amen.

Rest assured that there is no intentional gas-lighting coming from the guy on this end. Only a desire to share truth. Your perception of gas-lighting is in error.

Plz change your mind, doing so for truth's sake, for a view which all Apostolics can stand behind united.

. END of 3/3