[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618773] PART1/2

So you're just making it up, then?

Yes, the name of the logic I used is made up. Whether I make a name up or take it from a professors book, it doesn't change the reality of the concept. If I'm at a party and see a group playing a game from a box I assume there are rules. If I walk across the room and see another group with the same box game, I think they will both be playing by the same rules. This is consistent logic.It is not taken from a book. It is the logic all take from life.

Ok, if that's how you want to roll. Your example however is not equivalent to the subject being discussed.

True. But most everybody reading it will get the drift behind the sentence,even if it doesn't come from a professor's book.

The issue is not are Italians to follow Paul's teaching on headcovering when praying or prophesying but Japanese are to follow some other teaching. The question was "what is the law of logic that demands Adam and Eve must have been commanded the thing that Paul commands if he uses Adam and Eve as an example to support his command"? Paul did not claim "Adam and Eve were commanded a certain way therefore we should follow their example", but rather that Adam and Eve were created in a certain order and according to a certain hierarchy, which hierarchy and order provide illustrative support for his teaching.

The logic that most people use, will agree that, if Paul bases his arguments seen in 1Co11 on the first few ch's of Ge, then, if he commands in 1Co11 then these same commands would also be found in Ge. The players in both the Beginning and in 1Co11 are the same: God, man, woman. If the game is the same (it is - respect for God's order of authority) then the same rules would be applied in both places. They aren't, because the game at the Beginning doesn't show rules. That you proffer that God can command after Deut means you haven't gotten the concept yet. There are no rules shown at the Beginning. There are no commands for co/unco stated at the Beginning, the first time the game was played. Those who misinterpret 1Co11 say there are rules stated for the game - commands for co/unco. That there aren't any commands shown at the Beginning demands a logical explanation. One logical explanation could be that Paul's words are misinterpreted, that he doesn't command in 1Co11. The view that he doesn't command is supported by the evidence seen in the OT (the only Word Paul has and reads and bases his thoughts on): There are no commands in the Beginning, nor during the Age of Conscience, nor the whole time of the Age of Law, up until Paul's misinterpreted words. But I could be mistaken about the commands not being in the OT. I'm human. Plz point out any commands from Ge to Paul, which are similar to what is believed by some to be from 1Co11. But don't use a lot of time searching because they aren't there.

Alternatively, one might say that there was no game played at the Beginning, that God had no expectation that any must show respect for his order of authority. Following this reasoning then shows the reason no rules are shown at the Beginning is because there was no game. This would lead to the ridiculous assumption that somewhere in the middle of history God introduces the game called 'Show respect For God's Order of Authority' and in the middle of history now shows commands for co/unco. This is a ridiculous idea no one should buy into. But that is what is said if one believes that Paul is the first to command co/unco.

Paul says to beware, do not to be spoiled through philosophy. Philosophical arguments can be made which lead down long rabbit holes with many branch tunnels, leading to feelings of lostness for any who enter. If the philosophy that apostolics hold of 1Co11 is a misinterpretation, then there will be rabbit holes with branch tunnels. As I've pointed out in a previous post, I've shown at least 11 holes, which no one has filled yet. Well at least not to my satisfaction.

In another place, Paul referenced the law concerning not muzzling the ox who treads the corn as illustrative of his teaching about how apostles were to be supported by the churches they ministered to. Yet, the command in the law contains nothing about apostles being supported by the churches they ministered to.

But by example the Law shows those who minister the Law should be financially supported by those receiving the benefits of it. It is not without some form of support by command - titheing. The principle of this support for supporting ministers of God is the same regardless which covenant the Word is ministered in. The Word is shown giving them some form of this support. What isn't shown in the Word previous to Paul is any form of support for the misinterpretation of 1Co11. That it isn't there demands that the misinterpretation be examined and modified to bring an interpretation which is in agreement with the evidence shown. The principle of respect for God's order of authority is in effect whether there is a covenant in effect or not. Respect for God's order of authority operates outside of, or rather along side of covenants as a separate concept, doing so without commands for adherence. This is shown by how it is presented by the Word of God at the Beginning, the foundation of Paul's arguments. He should be seen to believe in, and apply the same principles he sees in the Beginning, to the arguments he uses in 1Co11. God did not command co/unco at the Beginning, neither does Paul in 1Co11. If so, then Paul is consistent, in harmony with Ge.

Your "law of consistency" is not an actual law of logic.

Agreed, but it is a logic which all Men use in everyday living.

Consistency means harmony of parts to one another.

Thus, the understanding that Paul is said to be commanding, is out of harmony with the whole of the Bible. You've proven the point I make. That the Bible as a whole previous to 1Co11 does not command co/unco shows the interpretation of 1Co11 that some hold is out of harmony.

Paul's teaching is consistent with his examples, as he himself explains and demonstrates. Your teaching however is not consistent with Paul's method of using examples elsewhere.

I'd invite you to provide some specifics. By not doing so, you continue to use methods which say to others 'you're wrong' but don't provide details of their error. I'll now do the same, for all readers to take home with them. You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong.

Does anyone have any idea what Esaias is wrong about after that charade? No.

If God can command after Deuteronomy, then God can command in 1st Corinthians.

Of course, but why do you mention kindergarten stuff? We are way past kindergarten talk. The question that has been put out is 'Does God command in 1Co11 when he hasn't in the Beginning?' All the parts are the same and their relationships to one another also the same. If he commands in one place then he would command the same in all places, to be consistent. That he didn't command co/unco in the Beginning, nor in any other time before Paul, calls into question whether Paul commands in 1Co11. It is inconsistent, out of harmony, in the light of all the previous scripture which doesn't command, to see him now do so in 1Co11. Plz put something out that is more than kindergarten in flavour. You should be able to do so.

Then God may command in 1st Corinthians and it is valid even though it may not be repeated anywhere else in the Scripture.

The question isn't 'could he have?' but rather 'did he?'

And thus your "law of consistency" and your claims that "because Paul's instructions aren't repeated in the Law or elsewhere therefore the passage in 1 Cor 11 contains no command" are admitted by you to be refuteed (by your admission of the point here that "God may speak once, and it is truth, even though not ever repeated."

By your line of reasoning, that it is Ok that God is seen not commanding co/unco in the Beginning, leads all readers to conclude that you believe that co/unco wasn't in effect in the Beginning because God did not command it there. Is that what you want readers to believe, that Paul bases his arguments for co/unco on a portion of scripture which doesn't also command those there to follow it, like he is now commanding? Does that make sense to your logical mind? Not to mine. Do you not want God to be seen that he is consistent in his methods? Co/unco exists outside of covenants, having come into existence before any covenant, even before the Adamic Covenant. It came into existence without a command asking for it to be honoured, being an inferred expectation. To be consistent God would continue to use the same method, using the same principle first seen used in the Beginning, not commanding something later which is first understood to be in effect by inferred expectation.

"Uncut long"? Who is that?

If you've read my commentary (you've inferred you have) then you know what this means. You again now use minor pointless jabs which contribute nothing to a discussion, wasting everyones time, thinking to score points from something as solid as air. Why not use the abilities you have instead of empty arguments like this?

Anyways, Paul is teaching women are to wear a headcovering and men are to not wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying.

What this sentence doesn't give is an explanation without holes that all can receive without controversy. It is my hope that the instinct view will do so, after careful examination of its claims is shown that it contains no holes, that all can agree with its arguments.

continued in part 2/2