1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Sadly, Don refuses to learn. Wasn’t he instructed on how to properly put a post together? Yet, he continues to bang out these posts which you can’t tell where the other poster is commenting and Don is replying. He figured out how to color his fonts black, but can’t handle using quote blocks?

I don't even understand how his posts and quotes end up the way they do? If you just hit "quote" on a post, you get the other person's quote in a box and you can then type after the quote. If you want to break the quote up into separate blocks you just insert "/quote" at the end, and "quote"the other person's text"/quote" at each section. I mean, this isn't rocket science. I can't even figure out how Don posts and quotes the way he does. It's like it would have to be intentionally garbled just to make it difficult?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

See post 137, second para, where Esaias says "I never suggested that 1 Cor 11 is a command for anybody BUT the new covenant church of God." where it appears you say this very thing. This is saying to me, 'a command for anybody BUT ONLY the new covenant church of God'. Perhaps you would now want to reword it in a way that doesn't suggest you believe it to be so, leading to misunderstandings.

How can it be misleading, unless English is not your native tongue?

Saying that 1 Cor 11 is for the new covenant church, and that I never suggested that 1 Cor 11 is for the old testament saints (wut?), is NOT THE SAME as saying "God never commands except for the new covenant church".

You have been reduced to quibbles about nothing. How about, instead, you just accept that 1 Cor 11 contains the words of an apostle telling Christians to DO something, and then just start DOING it? Christianity doesn't have to be complicated. It's actually pretty simple.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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!

What are you on about? In fact, what are you on?

What is "their everyday word for their veil custom"? Please do tell.

Once again, let me make it very simple and clear for you:

Paul establishes that any man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonours his head, and any woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonours her head. He says the man ought not to cover his head because he represents the glory of God. The woman ought to cover her head because she represents the glory of man. The woman who prays or prophesies uncovered is as if she were shaved. If she won't be covered when praying or prophesying, then she needs to be shorn. But since it is obviously a disgrace for a woman to be shorn, then let her be covered. Even nature agrees with this concept, of the man being uncovered and the woman being covered, because in the natural world long tresses on a man is shameful but they are a glory (thing of beauty, something to be admired) on a woman. Nature assigns to the woman a mantle (peribolaion) to indicate she ought to be covered, whereas nature assigns no such thing to the man, indicating he is to be uncovered. This illustrates what the apostle just told them to do - men are to pray uncovered, and women are to pray covered. If anyone wants to argue for some other way of doing things, neither the apostles nor the churches of God have any such practice (any practice contrary to what the apostle just taught the church to do).

Simple, easy to understand, has been correctly understood by EVERYBODY for 2000 years, except apparently Don, who has got some new-fangled idears to share wit e'rybody.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What are you on about? In fact, what are you on?

What is "their everyday word for their veil custom"? Please do tell.

Once again, let me make it very simple and clear for you:

Paul establishes that any man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonours his head, and any woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonours her head. He says the man ought not to cover his head because he represents the glory of God. The woman ought to cover her head because she represents the glory of man. The woman who prays or prophesies uncovered is as if she were shaved. If she won't be covered when praying or prophesying, then she needs to be shorn. But since it is obviously a disgrace for a woman to be shorn, then let her be covered. Even nature agrees with this concept, of the man being uncovered and the woman being covered, because in the natural world long tresses on a man is shameful but they are a glory (thing of beauty, something to be admired) on a woman. Nature assigns to the woman a mantle (peribolaion) to indicate she ought to be covered, whereas nature assigns no such thing to the man, indicating he is to be uncovered. This illustrates what the apostle just told them to do - men are to pray uncovered, and women are to pray covered. If anyone wants to argue for some other way of doing things, neither the apostles nor the churches of God have any such practice (any practice contrary to what the apostle just taught the church to do).

Simple, easy to understand, has been correctly understood by EVERYBODY for 2000 years, except apparently Don, who has got some new-fangled idears to share wit e'rybody.

But Unca Esaias, what about all the pastors that claim THEY are the mans spiritual covering?


Wouldnt that be taking the place that belongs to I dunno....maybe that God guy?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

...Absolom*dont @ me...that man was a Nazarite and I have good reason to believe that his tragic action was under the influece of the Lord as a Judgement against the house of David but I could be wrong...also his yearly cutting of his hair tracks with the provision for a lifetime Nazarite to cut their during certain times if it became too heavy...this was allowed for lifetime Nazarites...his yearly offering of the hair is the evidence I propose.

The idea that Absalom was a nazarite is a minority Jewish tradition, based entirely upon the fact he was known to have long hair. There is no actual reason to think he was a nazarite. As for lifetime nazarites being allowed to cut their hair periodically, that is incorrect. They are not to cut their hair for the duration of their vow. If it is a lifetime consecration, then they never cut their hair. I suppose someone could make a vow for a year, cut their hair and offer it, then make another vow for the rest of the year, and do this every year.

But Absalom's character really doesn't strike me as being of that kind of calibre, if you know what I mean.

Personally, I think he, like many eastern nobility, grew his hair long. Moreover, it was apparently exceptionally long, so he was a bit extravagant about it. And... it led to his downfall in battle.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

But Unca Esaias, what about all the pastors that claim THEY are the mans spiritual covering?


Wouldnt that be taking the place that belongs to I dunno....maybe that God guy?

Yeah, there is a movement ("New Apostolic Reformation", "New Apostolic Order", etc) popular among charismatics. I think it originates from the "Shepharding" movement among the charismatics in the 70s. The same people seem to be involved. They like to think of every Christian needing some kind of "covering", which of course means one of their own people to whom tithes get paid. I am not sure how much of this "covering" doctrine has infiltrated Pentecostal churches, though.

What's interesting is the word "atonement" basically means "covering". So when people talk about how every Christian needs a spiritual "covering" ie some kind of LEADER, it makes me think of how Jesus (our Shephard) is our Atonement (covering). So sounds like basic popery, if you ask me.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618891]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister I think that the position that Esaias takes makes the most sense to me.The veil view doesn't make sense when compared with what is seen in the Beginning. It makes no mention of a veil. 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. Amen, but only from a cultural view point. There are no Biblical commands for the veil in the only scripture Paul holds, the OT.


Esaias replies to Tithemeister:

Well, I wasn't trying to isolate 1 Cor 11 from the Old Testament references to veils and coverings, per se.

By saying that 1Co11 is only for the Church you automatically have isolated it. How can you here say otherwise?

I was however trying to point out that Paul's doctrine was not simply a repeat of "old testament doctrine".

Plz see post 161 where is shown that Paul says the OT game is the same as the NT game, with the same rules.

I do notice that the Levitical priests were required to cover their heads when ministering in the Tabernacle/Temple. This at first glance appears to contradict Paul's doctrine.

With superficial appearances and superficial examinations, it may then be seen to contradict. The cover the instinct view shows hangs down the head (gk defn of covered in v4), while the mitre is usually depicted atop the head. The two different roles the veil and mitre play prevent serious comparisons between the two by knowledgeable people .

But when we consider Paul also taught that the glory of God was concealed or covered up as it were under the old covenant (symbolised by Moses having to veil his face when he was in public), whereas under the new covenant the glory of God is uncovered in Christ, it follows the same pattern. That is, the new covenant "ordinance" of the man being uncovered when praying or prophesying is a great new covenant contrast to the old covenant Levitical priestly ordinance.

See post 73, for my counter-point to this.

As for the woman, if (as Paul points out) she represents the glory of Man,

she does.

then she ought to be covered. Not because of anything about females in particular, but because of what they symbolically represent - the glory of the man - needing to be covered in the presence of God.

Esaias would have you believe that the presence of the woman has some effect on the glory her man gives, that it is effected somehow by her covered or uncovered presence, "Needing to be covered in the presence of God" when with her man? Does this passage anywhere indicate that this is required? No. It is added in by Man in attempts to make sense of the facts seen, but the passage does not clearly indicate this. How does the glory of the woman prevent the glory of the man being given to God? When, except in misinterpreted 1Co11, does one human ever prevent the giving of God's glory by another, or cause a lessening of the glory another gives? Does not compute. Do we know of any other scriptural instances when this has happened? Surely there would be other scriptural examples if this was true. If two men come before God, one obviously much less sanctified than the other, does the lesser need also to veil so the greater's glory can be seen given and received by God? Obviously not. If 1 billion people glorify God and 6 billion glorify sin, do the 6 billion some how prevent or lessen the the glory from 1billion? The giving of glory is a personal act, isolated from the interference of all others because it comes from the heart directly to God, not through another human, male or female. Man and women are equals before God because both are the image of God. One need not cover before the Lord in the presence of the other because of any inequality or distraction one might cause. Though equal in the image of God, this does not prevent the reality that they have different roles. Specifically, the woman was made for man and this role requires giving proper reverence for the one whose purposes she was made for. The view which Esaias presents has been thrust in, necessitated by misinterpretation to be fabricated. That is, God's glory is symbolically uncovered, and man's glory is symbolically covered, when anyone is speaking either to or for God.

The old testament-era custom of women being veiled (pretty much all the time) when in public - which also prevailed not only in new testament times but all up through the middle ages and the renaissance and into the 1800s - appears to have been a social custom, since I cannot find a Divine ordinance anywhere in Scripture for women to be veiled "whenever out in public".

Hooray! We agree! The veil was a custom in the OT, and what is seen there is not by any command of God. We're making progress. But there is a long way to go. You have yet to explain why God would command the veil in the NT and not command it in the OT. Plz, when the players are equal in both places, why are the rules seen unequal?

Neither is there a command for men to be uncovered "whenever out in public". I think the Scripture indicates that women probably DID wear a headcovering of some kind whenever in public (otherwise the reference in Isaiah to Babylon as a woman being shamed by being stripped, including the removal of her headgear wouldn't really make much sense), but as far as I can see the INSTRUCTION is for "praying and prophesying".

While agreeing, I will not yet agree that it is only for worship times, unless someone convincingly persuades me otherwise. And Paul saying what was said does not indicate whether he does so as a command of God or whether he does it as suggestion to hold as a custom. You've got your work cut out for you. (See post 73, third quote and reply-to-quote for comments on Isaiah/Babylon.

The fact Paul speaks about "when praying or prophesying" indicates the tradition he is referring to is independent of any social custom, but rather has to do with worship.

Keeping in mind that I think traditions come as a result of commands and customs come from Man, plz show how a 'mans need to be uncovered for times of worship' tradition has come from a command which didn't exist in the OT. And, while you are in an explaining mood, plz explain why a woman's 'need to be covered during times of worship' tradition has come about, when the OT does not command a woman to be covered? Do you thus suggest that these are only NT traditions? If so, perhaps you'd also like to explain why what is seen in a woman's NT veil is seen in many idolatrous countries in many times as a custom. Why is what is said by you to be a NT tradition, also seen (the same thing is seen) as a custom of many nations, Jews included, previous to the NT times. That a woman's veil is seen both in idolatrous and righteous people in many times, both OT and NT, indicates not a tradition but a widely held custom. Do you suggest that God has changed, what was practiced world-wide as a custom, into what is now for just the church as a tradition? Obviously so, unless you'd like to backtrack saying that it is only for the NT Church as a tradition.

Which also is one of the reasons I don't think his point is simply about hair length, since that would be a matter that pertained all the time, not just when praying or prophesying.

Plz explain why, if v15 says But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering., plz explain why anyone would say that the veil is the covering for use for times of worship? Paul indicates long hair and, as you have said here, it would be hard to don and un-don long hair just for times of worship. Seeing long hair as a woman's cover indicates she shows respect for God's order of authority at all times, 24/7. Shouldn't Man show God respect 24/7? The error you make by indicating the cover is only for times of worship comes about from a microscopic examination of v5,6; when a macroscopic view of the Bible along with v5,6 would lead to another conclusion.

I've noticed most people, who don't have some kind of tradition they grew up with about the subject, when they read 1 Cor 11 their first impression is usually that it is saying women ought to wear a headcovering during worship, and men ought not to. At least that has been my experience.

A cursory first examination by a novice can lead to errors like just stated, while a careful examination of all of scripture with all its principles can lead to other conclusions. Many scholars carefully examine 1Co11 and come to many varying conclusions, dissimilar to those your novices give. Novice conclusions should be seen to be almost irrelevant. Nonetheless, it is an interesting observation.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Esaias would have you believe that the presence of the woman has some effect on the glory her man gives, that it is effected somehow by her covered or uncovered presence, "Needing to be covered in the presence of God" when with her man? Does this passage anywhere indicate that this is required? No. It is added in by Man in attempts to make sense of the facts seen, but the passage does not clearly indicate this. How does the glory of the woman prevent the glory of the man being given to God? When, except in misinterpreted 1Co11, does one human ever prevent the giving of God's glory by another, or cause a lessening of the glory another gives? Does not compute.

I literally grabbed this at random. Don most certainly does not compute. This is kind of laughable, actually.

Don, did I say "the presence of the woman has some effect on the glory her man gives"? No, I did not. Nor could anyone get that from my words unless they are just being dishonest.

I made it plain that in the context of 1 Cor 11, certain realities are to be REPRESENTED. The man is the glory of God (which is to say the man REPRESENTS the glory of God when praying or prophesying). Therefore, the glory of God being open and on display is REPRESENTED by the man being uncovered when praying or prophesying. The woman is the glory of the man (which is to say, she REPRESENTS the glory of man). Therefore, the glory of man being covered and hidden and thus NOT on display is REPRESENTED by the woman being covered when praying or prophesying. Nobody said anything whatsoever about "the glory of the man being given to God".

It is clear you either cannot grasp basic English, or are intellectually dishonest.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618899]

Quote:Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What is seen both microscopically and macroscopically, is only the expectation that Man would show respect for the order of God's authority using the regard of symbols. This is seen at the Beginning, through the OT, and in 1Co11. Expected but not commanded, macroscopically and microscopically.

So the sum total of Don's doctrine is "You can basically do what you want" in regards to 1 Cor 11.

There is nothing in post 143 which would lead to a conclusion you have made, leading readers to ask why an intelligent man such as yourself should conclude so.

Another example of how Don thinks that the Bible need not actually be followed, as something to be obeyed.

Or this is a distortion of what I actually think, misrepresenting me. Some people prefer a black/white view of the world, for many reasons. The world God made is a gray world. In many things there are no clearly defined borders of right and wrong. Those 'some' who prefer a black/white world do so from being freed from the needed attention required to determine what to do in gray situations. They prefer sharply defined rules defined by others. This is a ploy used by religion to add rules when God hasn't made one. Think Pharisee about now. They thus rely on the the views of others to give them a comfort that they are doing right. What is said by the rules derived from 1Co11 offers them comfort because they are clearly defined and simple to obey, which is Esaias's word. Making rigid rules about 1Co11 is contrary to the gray the Lord would like. Looking at the Beginning, we see no rigid rules for either the symbol or even a command to keep them to show respect to God's order. At creation the Lord's method is gray, not black/white. We ought to follow the Lord's example, using it in this topic. Early Man did - in Innocence, in Conscience and in Law; particularly the long 2500 yrs of Conscience when having no Law showed God's world to be gray. 2500 years with no law! Imagine. Not until Paul is misinterpreted, do we begin to see black/white in this regard. Black/white needs to be shelved to make room for God's gray method in this regard. 1Co11 needs to be seen gray, not the black/white, as seen in the misinterpretations of both the veil view and the uncut long view. The instinct view is gray. Instincts are gray, and not sharply defined like a command.

Esaias would attempt to mislead you to believe that the instinct view does not see Man showing regard by symbols to God's order of authority. It does, but not by way of command. It comes by yielding to God-given instincts. Who installed these instincts? God. Yielding to them shows yielding to God, effectively this obeys, which is Esaias's word.

In the other thread he tried to claim that heathens didn't HAVE to become Christians in order to be saved, they could be saved by their "right living based on conscience".

What Esaias tries here to do is distract from actually addressing this thread, because he has so little to actually say in rebuttal. Notice the repeated requests of mine to rebutt the conclusions in post 47, the vast majority which he has not bothered to counter. Should anyone like to know about what Esaias refers to in his last sentence, all they need do is ask me, and the thread will be referenced for your personal viewing. Esaias's distortions will be exposed for what they are - misrepresentations of what was actually said. Or, saving the messages to me, see the thread in the Fellowship Hall started by donfriesen1, called John3 and Romans2. Lets not get distracted/side-tracked here with what should have been discussed there. Doing this reveals Esaias's favourite trick, standing on his box, saying 'wrong, Don is wrong', but not taking the time to show how it is so. Not content to only do so for this thread, he does so with an old thread in avoidence of actually tackling the subject here. Oh, well. Why does someone of your caliber use tricks like this, Esaias, wasting our time and the resouces of AFF?

(Saved by "instincts", I guess?) Now, he has Paul teaching the church that God has certain expectations about respecting His order of authority, but those expectations aren't commanded and so if anyone wants to disregard those expectations "don't make a fuss about it because we don't command anyone to do what God 'expects' people to do."

Small men slur and call names, while big men get to the business at hand. Actually show how my conclusions are wrong, by getting to the business at hand, Esaias.

So basically, it's up to you to do whatever is right in your own eyes.

It should be obvious to anyone who "respects God's order of authority" that such a doctrine is heresy, macroscopically and microscopically.

Macroscopically, you could use your own original concepts when wanting to slur someone. You're certainly smart enough.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Evang.Benincasa;1618900].

This poster won't be replied to by donfriesen1, because many of his responses are only attempts at character assassinations - poor hermeneutics. He has stated in another post that his role is to mock me. Imagine that, an evangelist sees his role is to mock the one he thinks is lost.