|
Re: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Quote:
|
Holes found in the uncut long interpretation of 1Co11.2-16. What the majority of apostolics believe of 1Co11 is herein labelled: uncut long.
|
This is proving to be a thread which is a hot potatoe no one wants to touch. It uses logic which exposes errors in established apostolic thought that are either 1. so convincing that no one can think of anything to say against them; 2 so illogical that they aren't worth replying to.
Quote:
|
1. Paul is said by uncut long to be talking about the tradition of co/unco in v2. How could a tradition of co/unco have developed during the OT when it was never commanded there? It is not logical to believe it to be just a NT tradition.
|
. Many early NT Christians were converted Jews. The traditions and customs they held as Jews to a large extent would have followed them after their conversion. It is logical to see co/unco as an OT tradition had it been commanded there. That it was not then raises doubts that it was a tradition, vs a custom. It is not logical to think that co/unco would only be commanded in the NT, when the players, (God, man, woman) existed whether in or outside of covenants.
Quote:
|
2. Paul says: v4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. And why does a man's covered head dishonor God? Paul gives the answer in v7 ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God. Is it then not seen that the dishonour is, because the image of God is covered? It is a logical conclusion which is contrary to established theological views of the location of the image of God. It says the image of God is in Man's spiritual parts and not in the flesh. Because the majority of apostolics say that it is the long hair alone (without any other events) that dishonours God, it must then be seen that it comes from covering the image of God seen in the flesh. Concluding as uncut long does shows the image of God in the flesh, which is a silly thought.
|
For this reason uncut long must be examined and modified. The way it is construed it produces clashes in theology.
Quote:
|
3. Man and woman are equally the image of God. If a man's covered head (alone, without any other events) dishonours God then a woman's covered head should also be thought to dishonour God.
|
. This is another reason why uncut long must be examined and modified. Logic stares someone in the face, demanding an accountability for conclusions which don't fit. Are men and women dissimilar? Of course but not in the image of God. And it is the image of God which Paul refers to.
Quote:
|
4. Holders of uncut long do not acknowledge that v5,6 refers to the veil, when the lexicographer says it does.
|
Proper respect to knowledge must be maintained or it is seen that truth is ignored (even if it is non-scriptural truth). No truth-seeker purposely ignores truth, or hidden unseemly motives are exposed.
Quote:
|
5. With man and woman being equals as the image of God, it would be thought that both should have a symbol for showing respect to God's order of authority. The uncut long view only addresses a symbol regarding the woman.
|
Any Biblical view of any topic should be seen to cover all the bases. That's how truth works when it really is truth with a capital T. It covers all the bases and answers questions without confusion. When uncut long doesn't address the need for man to show respect to God's order of authority by a symbol, it raises questions causing confusion. Is the absence of long hair really a symbol showing this respect? Is 'not having something' the way symbols usually work? Don't symbols work by their presence and not their absence?
Quote:
|
6. Condensed to its simplist form for the woman, the uncut long view shows what's most important for her is uncut hair, as opposed to being covered. Paul's focus is on the cover.
|
Beware lest any cheat you through philosophy Paul says. Things can look logical unless examined closely. The uncut long view changes what Paul says for the woman from cover to uncut. It looks good but changes Paul's focus.
Quote:
|
7. Condensed to its simplist, the uncut long view shows a woman's cover to be a spiritual cover, while the man's is a physical cover. As both equally the image of God it would be expected that there would congruency applied to the equals.
|
The same rules should be applied to all players in the same game. This only makes sense.
Quote:
|
8. Paul says v13 Judge among yourselves, and v14 Does not even nature itself teach. If Paul commands from God then no appeals to nature or the ways of Man would be needed.
|
God is often seen commanding and not giving an explanation as to why he commands. He commands, and lets Man figure out the why. Paul in 1Co11 refers to what comes from Man's instincts and gives these appeals to it because the source of instincts is not clearly seen, being found hidden within Man's nature. We only know of instincts of Man because of observations of Man's actions. If it weren't so then we may never know of them, when hidden within Man. Paul makes necessary attempts to show the source of Man's co/unco actions by these appeals because they come from a hidden part of Man, and not from commands of God.
Quote:
|
9. Uncut long says v15 shows an exchanging of the veil for uncut long hair. It is not logical that God would exchange an established social practise with a spiritual practice. If anything, the non-sinful social practise would remain unchanged and a spiritual practice added on top of it.
|
Paul elsewhere in 1Co tells the Co Christian to stay as they are. 1Co7.17-24. It is a principle that also applies elswhere. It could be concluded that this would include customs. Therefore it is wrong to think that Paul wants to replace a existing Co custom of the veil with a tradition of long hair. The idea of replacing it is called into question, not that Paul doesn't want a woman to have long hair.
Quote:
|
10. There are no commands found for co/unco from Creation till Paul. That this is true shouts something. Anyone not listening should remove the ear plugs.
|
. Paul bases arguments put forward in 1Co11 from the first chapters of Genesis. If that is his scriptural foundation then it is logical to presume that commands similar to what are believed to come from 1Co11 would also be seen there. That they aren't seen anywhere in the OT raises questions which should be answered. The instincts view attempts to answer those questions.
Quote:
|
11. Why does the pagan Gk have a word and a practise in their society, (komao -long uncut hair), which shows them using it for hundreds of years, when what they've been practising is said by uncut long to be a command of God? Does not compute.
|
This fact, along with what scholars say is the practise of co/unco seen in many pagan nations in many eras, should speak loudly that co/unco comes from instincts.The pagan world is far from the hearing or obeying of any commands of God. This is especially true when no commands for co/unco are seen in the OT scriptures.
Quote:
|
My commentary deals with the holes in more detail, also giving a view of 1Co11 without these holes.
|
Because I speak other than the majority does, I am then called into question. What's wrong with this guy who seemingly opposes established doctrine everyone holds? Instead of calling into question this individual's motivations/heart, what should be done is to disprove the individual's allegations. This is not/has not been done. Instead the insinuation that there is something wrong with the guys heart. Disprove the views and the allegations die. Simple.
The instincts view does not do away with any need to show respect to God's order of authority. It is a scriptural view which sees the sources of what Paul says in a different way, perhaps more scripturally sourced. Uncut long does not show sources in the OT for most of their thought, when it should. The OT is the only scripture Paul has. |
.
|