[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Tithesmeister;1618890]

Quote: Originally Posted by Esaias

The issue of 1 Cor 11 is not about general modesty nor about "the purpose of the veil in a culture far removed from ours both in time and geography". The issue is about the churches of God and propriety in praying and prophesying. Paul does not refer the Corinthians to local "custom"

When he uses their everyday word for their veil custom, it is hard for any readers not to see him thinking about the custom the word describes! Thus, he must be understood to refer to the custom of the veil. If this custom thought conflicts with your view then you have 2 choices: 1 change your view for one which gives explanation of why Paul would refer to a custom, or 2. keep saying Paul does not refer to the custom (though using the word for it), until you convince everyone in the world it is so. Which one do you think is the right thing to do? 1Co11 is scripture, which uses words which should be believed as they are given. Paul does actually refer to the veil. But when believed to be the cover as the symbol to show respect to God's order of authority, it causes another hole - nowhere is their a command in the OT that the veil is the cover. (And Paul refers to the OT for the basis for his 1Co11 thoughts.) Thus, Paul should be thought to refer to the veil as a custom and not as God's cover symbol. If done so, it removes these holes: 1. saying he doesn't doesn't refer to the veil in any way (held by those of uncut long) 2. that God never commanded the veil in the OT (which command should be there for God to be seen consistent) 3. It removes the conflict between v5 and v15, which show 2 different covers, when the veil and not long hair is erroneously said to be the cover. But if you only focus microscopically on v5,6 then it is hard not to say that Paul commands the veil as the cover. Doctrine is nicer when it doesn't have holes.

, but to Adam and Eve, to the order of Creation, and to the angels.

It's hard not to agree with what is said here. What is also hard, is to believe Eve would not have also been commanded the veil, if the Co are. Believing and acting on this should compel a need to look for a view which can incorporate all these facts without contradiction. I believe the instinct view to do so. None of which have anything to do with "a culture far removed from ours in time and geography".

Besides which, the universal practice in all of Christendom for some 2000 years has been to practice what Paul taught. This has only been dropped in Western countries in the last 100 years or so, although the remnants of the practice has remained still in a large number of churches in the West in one form or another. Thus, in most churches, men still remove their hats, and there is nothing thought unseemly about a woman wearing a hat or scarf or something during church.

If God would specifically command then he would specify and not leave it to the whim of Man to do what is said to plz God. It would not be 'hat or scarf or something else'. Commands does not leave options of pick one of many in the philosophy of Man for your choice. Who thinks up stuff like this? It shows a desire to make scripture fit Man's ideas.


Tithesmeister replies to Esaias:

Sorry Esaias. I didn’t realize y’all were isolating 1Corinthians 11 from the Old Testament examples of veil use. I still think it’s interesting even if it’s not necessarily relevant to the story.

I'd say it has to be critically relevant. Paul should not be seen as separating 1Co11 from the OT. He refers to the OT, when teaching NT people. He shouldn't be thought to isolate but to join them.

I’m not trying to take a side in the discussion, I’m just trying to learn. I think that the position that Esaias takes makes the most sense to me.

Esaias's view has holes. The view that God has of 1Co11 should not be thought to have holes. His omniscience would prevent this. A view must be held which has no holes, or at minimum, the view held should be seen to have the least amount of holes of all views. This view would then be the closest to God's hole-less view.

Cloverdale, the one who translated his Bible: “It shall greatly help ye to understand the Scriptures if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth after.” With that in mind, a view of 1Co11 must include both long hair and the veil because of the prominence both held in their culture and in this scripture passage. When Paul is seen to say v15, But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering., it causes conflicts (holes) with the veil view (which says the veil is the cover). A view with the least holes should have a way to explain away this hole. Thus far, the holders of the veil view, Esaias and Amanah, have not done so. Silence is all that is heard. Why do these two, who usually have many words, why have they remained silent? Because their view does not have a come-back because it doesn't allow it. It is hard to argue against truth with falsehood. It doesn't fit. Reader, check out the instinct view, which has an explanation which places v5, v15, the veil, and long hair in congruency with each other and with what is seen in life and all areas of scripture as well.

I wish it were articulated more clearly by Paul, but I have an idea that in his time, and to the audience he was writing to, it probably made perfect sense.

Agreed. It would be most unusual to think that Paul wouldn't have made perfect sense to the Co. No one serious would seriously write in such a way that wouldn't be perfectly understood by the receiver. It would be out of character for Paul to do otherwise. Paul grew up in a culture similar to the culture of Co. Thus, when he writes in a way which to us is not clear, this knowledge would help the Co be seen by us as understanding what Paul writes of. Co culture viewed both long hair and the veil favourably. Paul writes of both hair and the veil. Seeing what is seen through this filter may help us decipher today what the Co understood. In fact, this is what should be done. Paul certainly writes about both, and, to make the whole passage make sense, I see Paul addressing both the custom of the veil and what God had provided through long hair. A view must be found which addresses both the veil and hair, providing reasons why he would address both. The instincts view does with its explanation, in my opinion.

I have also thought about the custom of removing our hats to pray as men. It does seem uncouth for a man to pray with a hat on.

The question I've asked myself about this is, why is it so? Do I also feel this way only because of years of having had believed and having been taught this to be true, or is my spirit/conscience testifying to what it feels and knows to be from God? Years of believing something, even if it is not true, bends the spirit/thinking in a certain direction. Trusting misinterpreted doctrine does the same. If the light in you is darkness, how great is that darkness, Jesus said. If what is felt, in the spirit/conscience, is testifying about God's ways, then scripture usually concurs. There is precious little in scripture testifying to the impropriety of a man being uncovered before God for prayer (but many verses testifying of covering the head/face when shamed, as referred to by the instinct view). That aside, I also have a personal feeling/thought that it is proper to bare my head before others. Why? Because I like it when it is done for me. I like to see the whole of the person (the head being the unofficial centre of Man, symbolically representing the whole). We often do for others what we would like them to do for us. Uncover the head because it helps see the whole head, which we like to see for some no-reason reason. Just because it feels right when seeing the whole head. (Did God ever command it for everyday people? The High Priest was a special case. Special people get special rules which do not necessarily apply to regular people. Is there another place other than misinterpreted 1Co11?) Knowing that God is a real person may stimulate a transfer to him, this feeling of it being proper to uncover, the same as before others. Thus, it may be done because of something in our nature likes it, though not being a command of God. God does not command a man to be uncovered before him unless 1Co11 is misinterpreted. The thought that he does is out of sync with the whole of the Bible, thus a misinterpretation. It also does not make sense that God would command man but not the woman, when they are equals in the image of God. What is said of man in this regard should apply equally to the woman in this regard. Has what is written in 1Co11 been (subconsciously) melded with the human trait only because it also involves the head? Perhaps. I suggest it does.

Just another note to Dan?

Don, as in my user name.

Just to keep it real, it really shouldn’t be on Esaias to prove you wrong.

True. Agreed, that it should not seen that it is Esaias alone who should be exposing the errors that I present, if so. It comes naturally that the one who demonstrates by the usual ways things have been in AFF, in this case that Esaias is seen as a giant because of his many responses with great knowledge and insight, that he represents the whole. Although informally, unofficially done, it nevertheless is my impression of him. The church is a body with many parts functioning together, and the mouth isn't the whole, though it does all the talking. All parts should contribute to the functioning of the body, but the mouth talks. Esaias is AFF's mouth in my mind.


I think that would be an unrealistic precedent to follow. Typically, when we address doctrine, it is incumbent on us individually to prove doctrine by supporting it with scripture. After all there is only one doctrine that is true and correct. There are many opinions. And of course, as is usually the case in vetting doctrine, it is only possible for one view to be true.

On the other hand it is possible for both to be wrong.

Very true indeed.

Or all three. I do think it’s important to pursue truth though. That is the beauty of the AFF forum in my opinion.

Tithemeister and all readers, plz take the time to examine and critique the instinct view. It explains away the holes seen in the veil view and the uncut long hair view. Your critiquing is important because I am the purveyer of this view and am biased in its favour, perhaps blinded to errors of reasoning you may expose.