[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Part 2/2.

You'll admit, I presume, that 1Co11 is seen by scholars as one of, if not the most difficult passages to get to a clear understanding of, with a view which all can agree on. The instinct view, in my estimation, provides an understanding which satisfies. To my mind it answers many questions and covers the bases. But as the author of it, thinking what I've received is from the Lord who opened my understanding to it, I'm biased. My rational mind tells me that I should lay aside my bias and consider any objections others may see in my logic. I'm listening. Plz explain why you think the reasons Paul gives is more logical than to think it is motivated by instincts.

That said, Paul writes of more here than just instincts, in my opinion. He writes of what is proper to do in a society. In Ro13 Paul tells the Ro to obey the rules of society. The rules are the things which human gov't has dictated to be followed. Rules of gov't are rules of society through a governing body. Do them, Paul says, for conscience sake. In Co, an unwritten rule of society was the propriety for a woman to appear in public with a veil. Prayer and prophecy times are public times. Follow the rules of your society, Co Christian woman, though you've found liberty from rules, in Jesus. 1Co10.23,24 is in the ch just before 1Co11. All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being. Obey your society's rules.

Paul writes 1Co11 with few words, thinking that the Co will understand that which few words fails to convey to us. This is a time when history helps explain what scripture has failed to detail. My view thus is only an opinion, which another, such as yourself may not agree with. As pointed out in an earlier post, some views of 1Co11 have holes. In my opinion the instinct view fills the holes. Plz show how I am in error in filling these holes or in the instincts view's explanation of 1Co11. I realise that doing so will be based on the same method I use, opinion, and that no view has incontrovertible evidence.

Do you agree that Ge3.16 shows that both woman and man will have instincts? Do you agree that the OT shows an instinct of covering the head when shamed? This is scriptural evidence and not opinion, which is today still seen in Man. Man knows of instincts by observation of the actions of the majority. That alone is the proof that Man has instincts. I agree that instincts aren't clearly defined, having said so in my commentary, but they certainly are real, are not unknown as you say and clearly seen when the actions of a majority reveal them. The reasons why poll takers take polls is to show a majority view which singular examinations doesn't reveal. Polls and their results are real because they reflect majority views. The same with real instincts.

I having already addressed an answer to this question, which you no doubt have read. I'll repeat briefly what I've already said. No commands are shown in the OT for co/unco. This would prevent a co/unco tradition from forming in the OT Jew that would carry over into the Church. The long hair which was practiced was from custom and not command or tradition (there being no command). Customs may get their starts from instinctive impulses. Long hair in women comes from her instinctive desire to want to be beautiful for men, leading to a custom of long hair. If all the churches previous to Paul's writing of 1Co11 practised long hair then they had done so by customs which may have sprung out of instincts. Why customs vs. traditions? There are no recorded Biblical commands from Jesus, the 12, or the OT, that commanded the keeping of long hair. You may contend that they held uniformity of practise on long hair by tradition/command but you do so without evidence. It is assumed to be so by opinion alone. Doctrines should be based on evidence and not just opinion, no matter how logical that opinion is. The OT scriptures offer no evidence that your opinion on tradition is correct, though it is logical. The lack of OT evidence speaks against the opinion. Had we seen commands in the OT for co/unco then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Eph4.13 speaks against your uniformity thought that claims the apostles/churches were in agreement on all things. In another post you gave a beautiful talk on the uniformity of belief of the early church. But it fails to show what the details of it are. He6 and Eph4.5 speaks to the things they did agree on. Co/unco is not listed there. The early church no doubt had uniformity of believe on the basics and any claim that they held uniformity of believe on co/unco is opinion without evidence. Paul says v3But I want you to know which insinuates that it is new and may not be common.

Paul writes something important in 1Co11 or he wouldn't write. He wants all to know what he knows. The question for all readers of 1Co11 to answer is: What important thing does Paul write of? Is it OK to have a view of it full of holes? Most would say the less holes the better. Plz show how my conclusion in the instinct view is wrong beyond just saying 'It is wrong' or using mocking emojis. That such methods are used insults the time and intelligence which readers invest in reading this thread. Do better. You've got it in you to do so.

.