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

[donfriesen1]

Part 2/2

Originally Posted by Esaias

This doesn't make sense to Don......

........wrong on the interwebs once again.

****************



Quote: from donfriesen1
Whatever answer comes of such a search must then answer the question, 'does Nature show us that the veil is a command of God?'.
Esaias replies.

Look at the duplicity here. This is called "straw-manning". Nobody, including the apostle Paul, said "nature shows us the veil is a command of God."

No duplicity here from Don .The reason this was said, was the veil view's argument that nature testifies in support of the idea that God commands the veil. The veil view is not my view. The arguments put forward are not mine. I've only referred to that which others have put forward and support. Their use of it results in nature showing the veil as a command of God. Finito.

That idea only exists in Don's mind. And that is because Don either cannot understand what is being said to him, or because he has an agenda. Lest anyone think Don hasn't been informed on this point, once again, Paul says nature teaches a lesson, namely, that long hair is a shame to a man but a glory to a woman. THAT is the lesson from nature. Not that "women should wear a veil".

Again, from the view point of the veil view, this makes perfect sense. What should also be done is to figure out, when this makes sense, is it Pauls view of what God thinks? Why should this be determined? Because the evidence doesn't support the premise. Because facts can sometimes lead us to wrong conclusions. (Trinitarians wrongly see the three simultaneous manifestations of God at Jesus' baptism as indicative of 3 Persons - a wrong conclusion of the facts. The only Word at the time of Jesus' baptism was the OT. It had testified that this conclusion is against the Oneness of God, which is out of agreement with the Trinitarian conclusion, showing it shouldn't be held, though the facts of Jesus' baptism actually showed 3 individual simultaneous manifestations of God.)

Paul's values come from the OT, the Book he loves and is a scholar/expert of. His reading of the OT shows God commanding those men who wish a deeper consecration by a life long Nazarite vow, commanding those with life long vows to have long hair. Which would Paul say is the correct view to hold when based on the Word he holds in his hand? He would say, had he then been queried, 'that the Book I get my values from doesn't command men not to have long hair, and gives examples of holy men who were commanded by God to have long hair by the Nazarite commands'. Thus, he would not say that manly long hair is a sin when looking through the eyes of the OT.

Putting first things first, the OT, as the foundation of the NT, would not lead to the conclusion that long hair is sinful. Another explanation of v14 must be found which agrees with the OT foundation. The view provided by the instinct view provides such an explanation, though admittedly it is somewhat a stretch. Though a stretch, it is in agreement with the facts of the OT and can be seen to be in agreement with 1Co11. Though this is contrary to what is now believed about long hair/v14 by some apostolics, it should be considered as the plausible explanation which explains all the facts of the OT and 1Co11, doing so without holes.

Jesus was baptized by a long-haired Nazarite. The thought of any apostolic parent to have their children baptized by some long-haired male preacher is abhorrently a pejorative. But the example that Jesus gives, should lead to an examination of what produces this abhorrency; and then the rejection of it. The facts don't change. Jesus was baptized by a long-hair. Its time to receive the view which is in agreement with the facts. A microscopic view of v14 sees long hair as a sin, but a macroscopic view of the whole Word does not, though still a dishonour, but for other reasons. The instinct view may be the one to show the facts in a correct light, while the uncut long and veil views do not. They show views contrary to the facts. 'Application forms' are available for all those now wanting to switch views.

The lesson from nature CORROBORATES and SUPPORTS and ILLUSTRATES what Paul is teaching. Paul teaches a man should be uncovered and a woman should be covered when praying or prophesying.

Sure. A view like this can be made and it appears to be good thinking, until examined in the light of the OT, the Book Paul loves. Then it falls apart. Its difficult to change views after swearing up and down for years that a particular view should be held by all. But it can be done. I did after 40 years and so can others. Facing the truth and accepting what the facts say helps greatly to do so.

There is only one explanation for this behaviour that satisfies Occam's Razor.

What chapter is that found in? Not in the Bible? Oh, ok then. Thx but no thx. Joking aside, the instinct view, when new to the mind, is seen as the more complex because it has caused conflict with a long held view, causing confusion and the thought it is more complex. If you ever believed in Trintarian baptism you think those Jesus name people complicate things by their Jesus name baptism. But once accepted it becomes laughable to think that Jesus name baptism isn't accepted. It's so simple. The instinct view is actually the less complex. Man was created with God-given instincts. Perhaps you'll find a way to prove this wrong. This was true before Man was given any commands. Man at his simplest is right at the moment of creation. Commands make Man's life more complex. The instincts view sees Man satisfying God's order as such, in the simplicity of how they were created, without commands. The addition of commands by the veil/uncut long views adds additional elements to this simple scenario. They add complexity to the simplicity of the creation scenario.

This is now the third time you have provided proofs showing the veil view as correct and logical. Thx, for referencing Occam's Razor .

Quote: fromdonfriesen1
Why does the OT itself not present enough evidence to see either the veil or long hair as a command as the cover, when it should as a supporter of Natural Law? What would reason then say, about which is more likely to be the cover provided by Nature - long hair or a veil custom of Man. What this lack of OT evidence is saying is that Paul would not conclude this from reading it, that Nature is commanding the veil. In light of the Book he loves and is willing to die for, Paul would not command the veil because the OT hasn't. Esaias replies

Reason would say that Don is either a dishonest heretic or else is incompetent to carry on a conversation about the Bible.

Don loves the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God. He is not a heretic. Someone's views of 1Co11 do not scripturally define whether person is a heretic or not. Esaias is again looking for a way to make a graceful exit because he has nothing of substance to say against the instincts view to prove it as unscriptural. Instead he throws rotten tomatoes.

Plz note that Esaias again avoids answering the question posed. Does he purposely use a distraction to divert the reader from considering the truths it holds?

A supporter of natural law? God's commandments are now said to be a "supporter of Natural Law"? Which clearly places "Natural Law" as the PRIMARY thing, and God's commandments as a supplemtary and explanatory and illustrative support for this supposed "Natural Law". Good grief.

Looks like that sentence of mine could have been worded differently. Here it is within the paragraph for context: "Whatever answer comes of such a search must then answer the question, 'does Nature show us that the veil is a command of God?'. Or, why is what is seen as coming to be by Nature said to be a command just for the NT when it wasn't for 4050 years of OT history. God was quite capable to command in the OT times, that which he shows by Nature. And he hadn't until 1Co11 is misinterpreted as a command. An explanation must be proffered to explain this about the OT. Ask yourself this. If 1Co11 were not present, would we be having a convo about whether the veil vs long hair is the woman's commanded cover? Why does the OT itself not present enough evidence to see either the veil or long hair as a command as the cover, when it should as a supporter of Natural Law? What would reason then say, about which is more likely to be the cover provided by Nature - long hair or a veil custom of Man. What this lack of OT evidence is saying is that Paul would not conclude this from reading it, that Nature is commanding the veil. In light of the Book he loves and is willing to die for, Paul would not command the veil because the OT hasn't."

When saying that, that the OT is a supporter of Natural Law (Natural Law is Esaias' thing and I agree with it, see post 210) I gave the impression that it is the Primary which is supported by the Secondary, the OT. What I was trying to say is that the OT is a witness to the verity of Natural law, that it is in agreement with Esaias's premise of Nature's law. I believe the OT is the primary, supported by the secondary - Nature's law.

Esaias pokes holes in some of my mispoken statements and some of my grammtical wordings, but doesn't say much to disprove the claims of the instincts view. He also doesn't counter my refutations of the veil view very well. It is hard to refute truth or to defend misinterpreted doctrine with truth. Light and darkness don't co-habit.

And once again we see the "there can be no new testament command because it wasn't already commanded in the old testament", which doctrine is nowhere found in either the old testament or the new testament. I suppose the source for this bizarre unbiblical doctrine is Don's personal "natural instincts". Which reminds me of something the Bible says, that Amanah previously posted, about people only knowing what they know by "natural instincts" or something, like the brute beasts.

It remains true as an undisputed fact: The OT has not commanded the keeping of co/unco, nor yet commanding its keeping by symbols.

I am sure this thread will continue with multiple replies from Don where he will rehash the same old same old tired nonsense about instincts, Adam and Eve, the old testament doesn't command something therefore the new testament can't command it, Natural Law, did women really have long hair before the 20th century? did women really wear head coverings before some people on AFF started posting about it? yada yada yada blah blah blah yackety shmackety.

Reader, ask yourself why Esaias doesn't present undisputed counter-arguments to these, when a man of his caliber and experience should have no difficulty doing so, unless it is truth.

And, occasionally, when I am bored, I will pop in and remind Don and everybody else that he is wrong on the interwebs once again.

As always, thx for any popping you may do on this thread. How about staying and playing devil's advocate for the uncut long view? I'm sure you know enough of their view to present a defence for the holes seen there. How about it?

[donfriesen1]

PART 1/2

Originally Posted by Esaias

This doesn't make......

......once again.

*************


Quote: Originally Posted by donfriesen1

True. Amanah will contend that the Biblical headcovering is a commanded veil. Veils are an invention of Man, and as such became a custom of some people. This then results in seeing God changing what had been a custom into a command. Yet not at the time of creation, when it is expected that which is part of created order would first appear, but 4050 yrs later. This does not make sense to most people.
Esaias replies:

This doesn't make sense to Don. Most people recognise that 1 Cor 11 teaches women ought to wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying.

We don't make doctrine using only what most people recognize. Evidence is used. Or arguments of reason.

Unfortunately, most American and Western European people believe the command was "for then, but times have changed and is no longer something we need to do".

This cowboy has got his nose in the Word, and the whims of N American culture don't much affect him. What you've said here doesn't much apply to me.

God commanded Levites to blow trumpets, silver trumpets, which were an invention of man. So God changes a custom (people blew trumpets for all sorts of reasons in ye olden dayes) into a command, and even establishes a particular annual Feast Day for blowing trumpets. God also commanded Levites to praise God using stringed instruments and cymbals, something once again invented by men. So once again God is seen "changing a custom into a command". And once again Don is seen across the street beyond left field waving his banner that nobody left in the game is paying attention to.

Keen observation you make here, Esaias. One difference between the trumpets and veils comparison is, trumpets weren't ever practised by half of society as a custom, pre-command, and not after the command only for a select few believers - the priests. Though blown, the trumpet was not a custom in the same sense that a veil was. Does occasional pre-command blowing of the trumpet see it then as a custom. I think not. Does commanding its use by the priest then see turning a custom into command? Maybe. Maybe not. This might be said to be a bit of a stretch. There is quite a bit of inequality in the comparison.

What is still unanswered inspite of this trumpet knowledge is, 'why didn't God command the veil in the OT if he had in the NT. They had veils in the OT as a custom, the same as in the NT. God is seen commanding respect for God's order in the NT by the keeping of the veil command, according to the veil view, but not one such command for the OT. Even if you believe long hair is the cover, no command is given for the hair. Still no such command for the OT. It is illogical that that which started in the Beginning, God's order, should not have uniform rules/commands applied to it, when it is not seen attached to a covenant in any Age by command. Therefore, there should be uniformity of expected symbols across the Ages. The instinct view shows such uniformity, while the veil and uncut long views do not. The instinct view shows long hair as the cover, compelled by the response to an instinct, active for all times, showing women giving regard to God's authority. It is consistent in any Age. This view should be the view held by all apostolics, uniting them under one banner.

Quote: fron donfriesen1
The holders of the veil view have some explaining to do. Esaias replies:

Don has some explaining to do, like how is it that Paul explicitly says a woman is to be covered when praying or prophesying, yet Don thinks not so?

Not quite correct to say Don does not see Paul saying woman should be seen covered for worship. Don has said in other posts in this thread that Paul says these words, expecting that women should be covered. Where Esaias and I disagree is about the why Paul says such a thing. I would say that Paul wants Christian women to give due regard to social norms of their society, but not by command. God does not command the keeping of social norms which society has initiated. Esaias either does not take the proper time to understand the instincts view or there are other motivations asking him to describe my views incorrectly.

Or how Don continues to believe that the only thing that can be a command is whatever was commanded to Adam and Eve?

I'll not repeat here what has been said in response to this in other posts.

Why does Don disregard the words of both the Lord (through Moses) and Jesus Christ Himself, who jointly affirmed that man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God? Including 1 Cor 11? Etc etc.

That I present a scriptural commentary on a subject testifies due regard to scripture's authority. What isn't shown there or here is the motivation of such an astute one as Esaias, to make such comments, when he would well know the opposite to be true. What gives, E?,

Quote:from donfriesen1
Amanah would have you believe that this relationship includes the veil which Nature has assisted the woman to don. If Nature leads all women in the same direction, then we might see the majority of women in all places and all times holding to a veil. Is this in fact what is seen by history?
Esaias replies.

This statement by Don proves that Don is either totally ignorant of the subject, in which case he is absolutely no authority on the subject,

Agreed. I am very definitely no expert authority on the subject. Nor yet a scholar. I'm a Christian sharing views of God's Word. But plz, in my defense, I've posed a question which looks for someone with expertise to answer. If Esaias is the expert we look for, then we now have an answer to the question. Esaias seems to say without any ifs, ands, or buts, that women of all ages were veiled. Well, except for Eve, right?

or else he is intentionally attempting to mislead people, in which case again he is absolutely no authority on the subject. I haven't found a single person in all of history anywhere at any time who pretends that historically the majority of women did not wear some kind of head covering, across practically all cultures and time periods. As stated previously several times, those customs varied from place to place and time to time, but generally the idea that a woman would have a head covering was not seen as anything "newfangled and innovative".

And I would like to emphasize that which Esaias will agree with, that this was not done by command.

Further, Don once again begs the question, "if nature leads all women in the same direction"? Says who? Why, Don says, that's who.

It would not be proper for me to receive credit for the master work of 'nature' compiled by Esaias, in post 210. I have no idea why Esaias wants me to take credit for it here. Perhaps he will explain his words of this sentence, more fully.

Paul asserted to the Corinthians that nature teaches them something, which lesson from nature is supportive of his instruction regarding headcovering (as applied to both men and women). We already discussed what "nature" means Biblically, and especially in Paul's writings, which discussion Don is conveniently pretending did not take place, as evidenced by his use of "nature" as if it were somehow culturally independent.

I am definitely missing something when not understanding what Esaias talks of here. You may recall that I highly praised him for writing 'nature' in post 210. I have not pretended that it has not taken place. What caused you, Esaias, to say I pretend it never happened?

If indeed women of all ages enter into a custom of veiling, then pray tell, what does motivate this? It must be something from the nature of Man, producing forces which lead in the direction of the veil custom. Another word for these forces is instincts. That said, I would not suggest that Man has an instinct to veil. I don't see something coming to Man, which God could have caused Man to be born with instead, to come by a physical item, influenced to come to them by the qualities of their human characteristics. Oh, wait. God has caused something which Man is born with to be similar to a veil - long hair. So rather to suggest that an instinct of Man causes a desire to veil, I would instead say that Man's nature causes things like jealousy and fear. A man may ask his wife to veil because of jealous fears her beautiful hair may attract unwanted attention. Or her fears of her man's reaction may produce a desire to avoid it somehow, like by veiling. Aren't these things coming out of Man's Fallen nature, when without the Fallen nature these things wouldn't be? Perhaps so. It is Fallen nature, not Esaias's nature or instincts leading Man to veil. And nature/instincts lead a woman to have a natural 'veil', long hair.

Quote: from donfriesen1
If long hair is led by Nature to be the cover, then we would see the majority of women in all places and all times with long hair. Is this in fact what is seen by history? Esaias replies

In Don's world of minecraft, women didn't used to have long hair. I'm sorry, but the only people seriously asking this type of question would be toddlers raised on 1980s sitcoms only.

My presumption of the little I've read of history leads me to believe that the majority of women in all places and times have had long hair. I do not insinuate to say that they didn't, while Esaias thinks I did!


Quote:from donfriesen1
(Caution: we are now venturing to a place where history, and not the Word, will help determine a view which is said to be the Biblical view for all to hold.)
Esaias replies

Then why even raise the question? And why the "caution"?

Caution is advised because doctrine should be based on scripture, not history alone. If too much weight is placed on history as evidence of a doctrine, then we are in danger of not emphasizing scripture's place in doctrine making. I may have hit a nerve in Esaias' pain center. Is history where you placed most of your trust Esaias? Is that why you've reacted so strongly to my word 'caution'? To say that because history has shown women of all times or the majority of Christian times, as having veils is proof that Paul commands it, is akin to say that the 100's of years of majority Trinitarian belief is evidence that the Trinitarian doctrine is scripturally correct. It denies the possibility that majorities can sincerely believe something false.

Don would have us determine doctrine based on his absurd vague soundbites about "instincts", which I am sure are not nearly as authoritative as recorded known history, and certainly not as informative.

I've repeatedly referred to the mothering instinct. It has been active in 51% of the population 100% of history, which most have benefitted greatly by, all having been babies. It could be argued that this instinct is more real, more accurate and more active, than the history written by victors and liars, some of which is destroyed.

If history is to be relied on greatly, then a start with the history of the OT should be at the top. It should be the first historical place to look. It commands neither the veil not uncut long hair as the cover.


continued in Part 2/2

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by diakonos

ultra con? Is that like comic con?

Used to be. Posse up!

[donfriesen1]

The veil view says that v5 shows God commanding the veil. While lost in the interweb (Esais' term), I asked chatGPT 3 questions about gk word grammar indicating commands or not. The questions I asked and chatGPT's answers are below. This may indicate that Paul does not command either uncut long hair or the veil.

1. You said: If the koine gk language wants to use a tense which is like a command, which tense does it use?

ChatGPT said: In Koine Greek, the tense used to express a command or imperative action is the imperative mood, not a specific tense. The imperative mood is used to give direct commands, requests, or instructions.

While Greek verbs have various tenses (like present, aorist, future, etc.), in the context of the imperative, these tenses have slightly different functions:
Present Imperative: Often used for commands that express continuous or habitual actions. For example: λύε (lúe) — "Release!" (as an ongoing or habitual action)
Aorist Imperative: Used for commands that are to be performed as a single, completed action. For example: λύσον (lýson) — "Release!" (as a single action or event)
Future Imperative: This is rarer, but it can be used to indicate a command with an expectation that it will happen in the future. For example: λύσεις (lýseis) — "You will release!" (a command regarding future action)


In summary, while Koine Greek uses the imperative mood for commands, the choice of tense (present, aorist, or future) affects whether the action is seen as ongoing, completed, or expected in the future.


2. You said: Is the imperative tense used anywhere in 1Co11.2-16?

ChatGPT said: Yes, the imperative mood appears in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where Paul gives commands and instructions regarding worship, the role of women, and head coverings. The imperative is used for direct commands, instructions, and advice in these verses.

Here are some examples of the imperative mood in this passage:
1 Corinthians 11:3-16 (selected excerpts):

a) 1 Corinthians 11:4: πᾶς ἀνὴρ προσευχόμενος ἢ προφητεύων ἐπικαλύπτων τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ αἰσχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ Translation: "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head."
Here, although it's not an imperative, the idea is instructive in nature, guiding the behavior of men in worship. This verse explains what should not be done.

b) 1 Corinthians 11:6: εἰ δὲ ἡ γυνὴ οὐκ ἐξυπνίσθη, ἄλλοτε κεφαλὴν ἐκκαλύψασθαι Translation: "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn."
This is an imperative: "Let her be shorn" (ἀποκαλυφθῆναι) is a command indicating the result if the woman doesn't cover her head.

c) 1 Corinthians 11:10: διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῇ κεφαλῇ διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. Translation: "For this reason the woman ought to have authority on her head because of the angels."
While this verse doesn't contain an imperative, it provides a rationale for the behavior being instructed.


In summary, while the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 contains several instances where instructions or theological principles are given, imperatives like "let her be shorn" (11:6) are used, especially when Paul is discussing the behaviors expected during worship. These are commands or instructions intended to guide the Corinthians' actions regarding head coverings.


3. You said: List all.

ChatGPT said: In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul gives a number of instructions and commands. Here are the imperative verbs found in this passage, highlighting those with a direct command or instruction.


1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (with the Imperative Mood Verbs):

1 Corinthians 11:2: Μνημονεύω (mnēmoneúō) — "I commend" or "I praise" (present active indicative, but not an imperative).
1 Corinthians 11:4 Ἐπικαλύπτων (epikalýptōn) — "having his head covered" is not an imperative, but a participle describing a condition.
1 Corinthians 11:5: No imperative verb is used in this verse.
1 Corinthians 11:6: Ἀποκαλυφθῆναι (apokalýphthēnai) — "let her be shorn" (imperative, aorist passive) — This is a command regarding what should happen if a woman is not covered.
1 Corinthians 11:7: No imperative verb is used in this verse.
1 Corinthians 11:8-9: No imperative verb is used in these verses. They provide a theological explanation about the order of creation.
1 Corinthians 11:10: No imperative verb is used in this verse, although there is a statement of obligation for women to have authority on their heads.
1 Corinthians 11:11-12: No imperative verb is used in these verses. These are explanatory statements about the interdependence of men and women.
1 Corinthians 11:13: Διακρίνετε (diakrínēte) — "Judge for yourselves" (imperative, present active) — A command to the Corinthians to make their own judgment on the issue of head coverings.
1 Corinthians 11:14: Οὐκ ἔστιν (ouk estin) — "Is it not" is a rhetorical question, not an imperative.
1 Corinthians 11:15: No imperative verb is used in this verse.
1 Corinthians 11:16: No imperative verb is used in this verse. It's a concluding statement about the practice of head coverings.

Summary of Imperatives:

1 Corinthians 11:6: Ἀποκαλυφθῆναι (apokalýphthēnai) — "Let her be shorn"
1 Corinthians 11:13: Διακρίνετε (diakrínēte) — "Judge for yourselves"
These are the two key instances of the imperative mood used in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The first one is a command related to the head covering issue, and the second one is an instruction to the Corinthians to make a judgment based on their own understanding of nature.

(Do not fully trust Ai bots. Double check what they say. They are nororious for error.)

[Amanah]

To refute the argument that 1 Corinthians 11 is merely a suggestion and not a command, we can examine the language and context used by Paul:

Paul's use of phrases like "I want you to know" (1 Corinthians 11:3), "every man praying or prophesying" (1 Corinthians 11:4), and "it is proper for a woman to have her head covered" (1 Corinthians 11:13,) suggests that he is providing instructions and guidance, rather than mere suggestions.

Paul's Authority: As an apostle of Christ, Paul's writings carry authoritative weight (1 Corinthians 14:37; 2 Corinthians 10:8). His instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 should be understood as coming from a position of spiritual authority.

Church Order and Discipline: The passage is part of a larger discussion on church order and discipline (1 Corinthians 11-14). Paul's instructions on head coverings, prayer, and prophecy are intended to promote order, respect, and unity within the church.

Symbolism and Significance: The head covering is not merely a cultural or personal preference, but a symbol of authority, respect, and submission to God's order (1 Corinthians 11:3-10).

Disobedience and Consequences: Paul warns that disobedience to these instructions can lead to consequences, such as shame and judgment (1 Corinthians 11:5-6, 13-16).

The overall imperative tone and authoritative nature of Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 should be understood as providing clear guidance and commands for the Corinthian church, rather than mere suggestions or cultural observations.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

To refute the argument that 1 Corinthians 11 is merely a suggestion and not a command, we can examine the language and context used by Paul:

Paul's use of phrases like "I want you to know" (1 Corinthians 11:3), "every man praying or prophesying" (1 Corinthians 11:4), and "it is proper for a woman to have her head covered" (1 Corinthians 11:13,) suggests that he is providing instructions and guidance, rather than mere suggestions.

Paul's Authority: As an apostle of Christ, Paul's writings carry authoritative weight (1 Corinthians 14:37; 2 Corinthians 10:8). His instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 should be understood as coming from a position of spiritual authority.

Church Order and Discipline: The passage is part of a larger discussion on church order and discipline (1 Corinthians 11-14). Paul's instructions on head coverings, prayer, and prophecy are intended to promote order, respect, and unity within the church.

Symbolism and Significance: The head covering is not merely a cultural or personal preference, but a symbol of authority, respect, and submission to God's order (1 Corinthians 11:3-10).

Disobedience and Consequences: Paul warns that disobedience to these instructions can lead to consequences, such as shame and judgment (1 Corinthians 11:5-6, 13-16).

The overall imperative tone and authoritative nature of Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 should be understood as providing clear guidance and commands for the Corinthian church, rather than mere suggestions or cultural observations.

That’s pretty crystal clear.

The Apostle wasn’t giving his suggestion, opinion, or making a passing comment to be later ignored.

The Apostle was giving Church instruction.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

To refute the argument that 1 Corinthians 11 is merely a suggestion and not a command, we can examine the language and context used by Paul:

Paul's use of phrases like "I want you to know" (1 Corinthians 11:3), "every man praying or prophesying" (1 Corinthians 11:4), and "it is proper for a woman to have her head covered" (1 Corinthians 11:13,) suggests that he is providing instructions and guidance, rather than mere suggestions.

Paul's Authority: As an apostle of Christ, Paul's writings carry authoritative weight (1 Corinthians 14:37; 2 Corinthians 10:8). His instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 should be understood as coming from a position of spiritual authority.

Church Order and Discipline: The passage is part of a larger discussion on church order and discipline (1 Corinthians 11-14). Paul's instructions on head coverings, prayer, and prophecy are intended to promote order, respect, and unity within the church.

Symbolism and Significance: The head covering is not merely a cultural or personal preference, but a symbol of authority, respect, and submission to God's order (1 Corinthians 11:3-10).

Disobedience and Consequences: Paul warns that disobedience to these instructions can lead to consequences, such as shame and judgment (1 Corinthians 11:5-6, 13-16).

The overall imperative tone and authoritative nature of Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 should be understood as providing clear guidance and commands for the Corinthian church, rather than mere suggestions or cultural observations.

****************


There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, there you have Amanah's opinion. We all offer our opinions here on AFF, as to what we think God speaks to us about 1Co11.

Paul's use of phrases...suggests that he is providing instructions and guidance, rather than mere suggestions.

Certainly giving instructions and guidance, but does he command? Maybe, maybe not. If he does it is out of sync with the OT. It would be out of sync to see Paul out of sync with the Word of God, the OT. The only Word he had.

His instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 should be understood as coming from a position of spiritual authority.

As previously pointed out by me in other posts, Paul at times offers advice as a wise experienced person, and not doing so as a command.

Paul's instructions on head coverings, prayer, and prophecy are intended to promote order, respect, and unity within the church.

Does doing so necessitate giving it as a command? No. Does he usually? Yes, when necessitated by scripture or what God demands.

The head covering is not merely a cultural or personal preference, but a symbol of authority, respect, and submission to God's order.

The instinct view (iv) shows a symbol to God's order, as do the veil view (vv) and uncut long view (ulv). Which one would you want stuck in your arm when you are sin-sick? The iv. The iv, vv, ulv are all scriptural interpretations, yet do not agree. They can all be wrong, but they can't all be right.The view which least contradicts the OT may be the one to hold.

Paul warns that disobedience to these instructions can lead to consequences, such as shame and judgment (1 Corinthians 11:5-6, 13-16).

Failing to meet social/cultural expectations can also lead to these same things. Having said that, what judgment does Paul show as a consequence, in 1Co11.5-6, 13-16. You may misuse the word judgment.

The overall imperative tone and authoritative nature of Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 should be understood as providing clear guidance and commands for the Corinthian church, rather than mere suggestions or cultural observations.

The understanding of the imperative tone of 1Co11 may come from a misinterpretation of it. The words and style of writing of it do not necessarily indicate an imperative/commanding tone. When so seen, keeping in mind the OT lacking to command co/unco, to be in sync with the OT it should then be seen not as an imperative. Why do you, Amanah, ignore this critical info when formulating doctrine?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

You are a mental case.

I wasn’t replying to one of your posts. I was commenting on Amanah’s conclusion to this thread.

Don, you have absolutely proven beyond a shadow of doubt that you are ecclesiastically insane. Tell you what, there is a feature on this forum which allows you to place a poster on IGNORE. This may save you the trouble of having me living rent free in your head.

[Amanah]

The Destructive Nature of Humanity's Instincts

Genesis 6:5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 6:11-13 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Humanity's instinctual behavior, left unchecked, inevitably leads to destruction. The biblical account of Noah's time illustrates this point, highlighting the pervasive wickedness and violence that characterized human society.

The Need for Divine Instruction

Romans 3:9-18 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Given humanity's propensity for destructive behavior, it's clear that we need divine instruction to guide us toward righteousness. The Bible teaches that our hearts are deceitful and our understanding is limited, emphasizing the need for God's wisdom to transform our lives.

The Word of God: Our Guide to Righteousness

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Psalm 119:9-11 How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.

The Word of God provides us with the instruction and guidance we need to live righteously. Through Scripture, we receive teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, empowering us to live lives that honor God. By embracing God's Word, we can overcome our destructive tendencies and walk in the path of righteousness.

Originally Posted by Amanah

As far as the mothering instinct, many women clamour for the right to murder their unborn children, contrary to the God given natural rule of law for a just society.

The number of abortions performed annually in the US has seen some fluctuations. According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were approximately 930,000 abortions performed in 2020, with an abortion rate of 14.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 years ¹.

More recent data from the Guttmacher Institute shows that in 2023, an estimated 1,037,000 abortions occurred in the formal healthcare system, representing a rate of 15.9 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. This is an 11% increase since 2020 ².

It's worth noting that abortion rates have been declining over the past few decades, but the recent increase may be attributed to changes in access to abortion services following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022 ¹ ².

www.guttmacher.org

The so called mothering instinct results in lives that are nasty brutish and short for many children, abortion, child abuse, foster care, childhood poverty. Outside of a just society life is brutish and short.