|
Re: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
from Don:
Quote:
You and Esaias, and others, seem to indicate that the head covering is for times of worship alone. Can you emphatically state that this is your view? What is written in this post by me assumes this to be so.
|
Esaias responds:
Quote:
|
Interesting, since I have not ever said anything of the sort. I simply repeat what the apostle said, "praying or prophesying".
|
My apologies for including you when I shouldn't have. Plz forgive me. In a long thread started by Costeon called 'Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women' you had posted replies. My memory of what you had said there resulted in my thinking you believed that the cover for the woman is a veil. Was I wrong?
If it upsets you to be spoken of in the third person, I can change that. let me know.
from Don:
Quote:
|
Esaias states that all the churches kept all the traditions. And because all the churches were uniform in their beliefs, because Paul teaches co/unco to the Co church, it must then have been believed in every church because of unity of belief. Esaias starts at the wrong end.
|
Esaias responds:
Quote:
|
I start where Paul started. He laid out his doctrine, then pointed to the uniformity of the churches as a further motive for people to get in line with his doctrine. Don doesn't seem to know where to start with either Paul or myself.
|
What is this pointing back to? What is the relevance of a comment like this to the discussion?]
Quote:
|
Don doesn't believe Paul when he speaks of all the churches having the same practice.
|
On the contrary, I had said I agree with Esaias when he says the early apostolics had uniformity of belief. Post 20, third last paragraph. Post 32, under quote 3. While showing I agree with Esaias in general on the idea of uniformity of belief on the basics but highlighting Eph4.13 showing disagreement on some things. I have yet to see Esaias showing agreement with me on this, or showing agreement that He6 contains a list of first principles. You won't be seeing him do so - don't hold your breath. If there is no agreement between us, on what is plainly scriptural (Eph4.13, He6) then there may be no point to proceed in the discussion. Here's your out, if you are looking for an easy one. It will save you coming up with counter-arguments to my points, which you now fail to do.
Quote:
|
If Don had his way, every single doctrine would be taught by every single Bible writer in every single book. Since not every single doctrine is taught by every single Bible writer, Don expresses his disbelief and reluctance to accept as authoritative any doctrine he doesn't personally agree with. Suppose Don were in church with the apostle Paul. Suppose Paul said "this is how XYZ is to be done". Don would have none of it unless he first consulted all the other apostles, and then demanded they produce written copies of Jesus' own handwriting quoting Moses on the particular subject.
|
Did you hear the drum beat? Its the drum beat which is said to come from 28 yrs of belief in co/unco, if Jesus and the apostles all believed in co/unco as it is now said they believed. It beats from 30 ad to 50-60 ad, when the book of Co was written. Let's listen to hear the drum beat from the Beginning, from before the Fall. Nothing but silence because nothing is said there that is the same as what 1Co11 is said to say. Let's listen for the drum beat from the time of the Expulsion till the Law. Nothing but silence, for...let's make it easy and say 2500 years, because there is no command then about co/unco similar to what is said about 1Co11. Let's hear the drum beat from Mt Sinai til Pentecost. Nothing but silence for 1550 years. Esaias would have you believe that the 4030 yrs of silence should be said to not be, because of the drum beat from 28 yrs under Jesus/apostles. Because it beat for 28 yrs, he says it should be believed that it really did beat for the 4050, even when we did not hear a peep. Don't believe Esaias. Believe the facts and come to different conclusions than he. The drums didn't beat with Jesus while on earth. The drums were silent during his earthly days of 3 yrs ministry. Paul should be said to be the first to hit the drum, doing so 50-60 ad. Don't build your doctrines on assumptions that say because Paul believed in co/unco, then every other NT preacher did too. If you do, you so do on assumption, not evidence. Beyond saying the apostles had uniformity of belief we have no evidence of anyone else, Jesus or the 12, of believing in co/unco. Believe your ears. The silence from Creation til 50-60 ad is deafening. Silence this time is evidence worth listening to.
Quote:
|
In short, Don does not accept the authority of an apostle as an apostle.
|
Wrong, but Esaias would like it to be true.
Quote:
|
Which is fine, everybody will do what they want to do anyway. But such is not apostolic, because apostolics by definition accept as authoritative the teachings of Christ's apostles.
|
True. But the interpretation of 1Co11 has proved to be one of the most difficult. Even apostolics, who have received the Sirit of Truth, have difficulty agreeing what to believe about it. It thus is hard to say what the authoritative teaching of the apostles is on this topic. Apostolics wait for a view of 1Co11 which all can say is authoritative.
Quote:
|
There is considerable difference of opinion by scholars as to whether the Bible is the Word of God and not a mishmash of stolen pagan ideas collated by Jews and catholics for the purpose of controlling their respective populations. So Don has that going for him, at least.
|
I will continue to believe the Word of God. And Esaias will continue to use tricks of association, associating me with those who do not have apostolic faith, wanting to smear me with the brush they are smeared with. It is a trick he uses often when he doesn't make worthwhile counter-points. When asked why the OT scriptures shows no commands for co/unco similar to what modern apostolics say should be believed, he avoids an answer by saying the apostles were unified in their beliefs, and if Paul believed in co/unco then all had to have had to. Thats the best response to the question he can give - avoiding it.
Also avoided is the question why the pagan Gk women held to a practise for hundreds of years that is said (wrongly in my opinion) to be a command of God - uncut long hair.
Quote:
|
I don't recall the definition of "nature" being germane to the points I made.
|
It was first shown to be germaine in post 16.
Quote:
|
Whatever nature means, it is in agreement with Paul's teaching. Your errors do not require a digression into the definition of "nature" in order to be refuted.
|
Perhaps not. But when a word Paul uses has multiple definitions then we must know which definition he uses. If we don't, then we may never know what it is he teaches. You know this to be true without anyone saying it, making readers ask why Esaias speaks as he does? This is not rocket science.
Don says:
Quote:
|
Paul does use scripture in 1Co11 but I think that he would not say that it was a timeless scripture. Respect for God had a point in time where it had a start. In eternity Jesus says they are neither male nor female, and there is no need there for a timeless order of authority.
|
Quote:
|
Even Don doesn't seem to have a clue what he himself is saying. "Paul would not say it is a timeless scripture".
|
Good eye. You caught what I missed. I mispoke. I had been responding to Amanah who speaks of "timeless scriptural principles" in post36. You got me. I've egg on my face. Most anyone reading past the faux pas will see that I've corrected myself without knowing of my initial mispoke and wouldn't have pointed out an error, having seen me correct myself.
Quote:
|
Don is intent on trying to prove that whatever it was Paul was teaching, we today don't have to do it. That is the end result of his doctrine.
|
Not so, but to bring an understanding which all can agree on, having a view that fills voids which other views fail to do.
Don says:
Quote:
|
1. If commanded, then we would expect to see commands for Eve, which is not seen.
|
Esaias responds:
Quote:
|
Where was Eve commanded to have faith in Christ? Where was Eve commanded not to murder? Where was Eve commanded not to cross dress? Etc etc blah blah blah.
|
It stands to reason that if it is believed that all women are commanded to have a cover, that the representative of all women, the first woman, should have been commanded also. When this isn't seen it calls into question whether it is commanded (vs expected to be done). If the Beginning alone did not show this command, then it might be overlooked. What is known is no command is seen in Innocence, Conscience, Law times. You should take the time to prove this wrong, being easy to do if true. This is a period of some 4033 yrs. The absence of a command during this long period of time calls into question your contention that woman would have been commanded so. If you don't contend that she was commanded then why respond as you did?
To say Paul commands in 1Co 11 calls into question his understanding of things. He is a scholar of the OT, who demonstrates willingness to die for truth. His only scripture is the OT and from it he draws the values he believes are worth dying for. These scriptures contain no command similar to what some apostolics say is commanded. If his beloved book does not command then why would he now say to the Co that God commands? It would call into question his reasoning ability. The OT shows no commands for co/unco. Better to see him agreeing with the OT - God does not command co/unco
Quote:
|
There really is no need to go further. Don is launching out in to the deep thinking he is headed west for a tropical paradise but he's headed north right into an iceberg flotilla. The journey of a 1000 miles begin with a single step. But if that first step is in the wrong direction, it doesn't matter how far one goes, or what spectacular sights one sees. One will simply not arrive at the proposed destination.
|
Esaias apparently makes parting allegations, letting them dangle, hoping that all will agree, indicating that he will not be heard from again. Let's hope that he re-appears because he has great insight and vast knowledge. Let's hope that he actually uses it and attempts to provide weighty counter-points which are deeper than: Don's in error. Don's got absurd ideas.
What he said about the unity of apostlic belief was weighty, but not entirely true because they didn't agree on everything, as Eph4.13 shows. Esaias fails to show in detail what they uniformly agree on, seemingly not agreeing that He 6 is that list. Co/unco is not on it.
|
.
|