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

[Esaias]

Yep, Don is still wrong.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yep, Don is still wrong.

It sure seems that way.

[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.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The Destructive Nature of Humanity's Instincts

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.

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

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.

Maturity of Christians leads them past basics. To keep to referring to the idea that Man has a sinful nature brings what new thing to the discussion of 1Co11? Nothing. It is an old hat that no one disputes as true. What relevance does this bring to a discussion when both of us agree on it? Try a new hat to prove either: the iv (instinct view) is wrong or something new to prove the vv (veil view) as right.

1Co11 has many views of it, testifying to the difficulty of determining what it is exactly that Paul is saying. When expressed-views conflict with theology or have holes then they need to be examined for modification or discard. The vv has shown need for examination.

Other than saying the iv is using instincts of Man, using a defn of instincts which is not used to explain the iv, then what have you said to show the iv's errors?

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.

Did you notice that, in so many words, Amanah here testifies that mothering instincts do not exist, calling them 'so called'.

[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.

Don, you keep sending me love letters in PM. Asking me to repent. Therefore you are responding to me. There is no reason for me to give any input to your postings other than mocking. Because I’ve responded to you with book, chapter, and verse, and you ignore the information to push your nonsense. Esaias, Amanah have made a huge effort to respond to your confusion. Yet, you return the favor by taunts, and sarcasms. Sadly, you know what you are doing here. You know that you will get these reactions. Therefore you bait people into discussions so you can point out how THEY are getting YOU wrong. Don’t contact me through PM. You post how you WON’T reply to me? But, you are responding in PMs! Don, you aren’t honest. Don, discussing theology with you is futile. Other than pointing out how messed up you are. You left Apostolic Pentecostal beliefs, OK. We are just not buying what you appear to be selling. You be you, and I hope you snap out of it. But, alas, I believe your snow ball has already rolled down the hill long ago.

[Amanah]

Don, to invent an anti biblical interpretation for 1 Corinthians 11 that no one besides you in thousands of years has ever proposed is sheer hubris.

[Amanah]

Here are snippets from various biblical commentaries that interpret 1 Corinthians 11 as women using a veil as a head covering:

1. Matthew Henry's Commentary
"But the apostle here speaks of the woman's covering her head in a religious assembly, as a sign of her subjection to her husband, and consequently to the Lord. The veil, or some other covering, was the sign of this subjection."

2. John Calvin's Commentary
"The word 'covering' (peribolaion) properly signifies a veil, or a covering for the head... The woman, therefore, who has no covering on her head, dishonors her head."

3. Adam Clarke's Commentary
"The word 'covering' here signifies a veil, or a piece of cloth to cover the head... The apostle argues that the woman ought to have her head covered in the assembly."

4. Charles Hodge's Commentary
"The word 'covering' (peribolaion) means a veil or shawl... The argument of the apostle is that the woman should have her head covered in the public assemblies."

5. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary
"The veil or 'covering' (peribolaion) was the expected dress for women... The woman, by uncovering her head, throws off the badge of her subjection to man."

6. The Bible Knowledge Commentary by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck:
"The word 'covering' (peribolaion) refers to a veil or shawl that women wear on their heads as a sign of modesty and subjection."

7. The Expositor's Bible Commentary by Frank E. Gaebelein:
"The Greek word 'covering' (peribolaion) means a veil or a shawl... a woman's uncovered head was a sign of looseness."

8. The New International Commentary on the New Testament by Gordon D. Fee:
"The word 'covering' (peribolaion) is a veil... The argument is that the woman's uncovered head is a sign of her independence, whereas the covering signifies her submission."

9. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries by Leon Morris:
"The word 'covering' (peribolaion) means a veil... for women to wear a veil in public, and especially in worship."

10. The Word Biblical Commentary by David E. Garland:
"The word 'covering' (peribolaion) denotes a veil... a woman's uncovered head was a symbol of shamelessness and a lack of submission."

These commentaries, written by various theologians and scholars, all interpret 1 Corinthians 11 as instructing women to wear a veil or head covering as a sign of subjection to their husbands and to the Lord.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The wearing of the veil for women in the Roman Empire was extremely important. They were worn for a variety of reasons, including modesty, protection, and especially, social status. Women who were married wore veils to show their modesty and Pudicitia. Pudicitia was the Latin term for sexual fidelity. During a Roman wedding the veil was to protect the bride from the "evil eye." Therefore the veil was protection for the wife against evil spirits all the way up to the Middle Ages, maybe even further in Europe. The veil (hijabs) in Islam also is to protect against evil, but mostly a sign of modesty.

Among the Roman and Greek aristocrats covering the head was a symbol of higher social status in their culture.

Roman Priests and Priestesses performing a sacrifice wore a veil. Caesar covered his head when performing sacrifices to his gods. In religious worship head covers were employed by men and women. Adopted throughout the Roman Empire. Freeborn women wore a ribbon or band called the vitta around their forehead and head to confine their hair. In the Republic, any wife who refused to wear a veil could be divorced. Later on in the Empire Rome took a more liberal stance on the veil, and began to refuse to wear veils. In short veil wearing goes all the way back even before the Roman Republic.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don, to invent an anti biblical interpretation for 1 Corinthians 11 that no one besides you in thousands of years has ever proposed is sheer hubris.

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

to invent an anti biblical interpretation

Amanah now calls the iv (instincts view) an 'anti biblical interpretation'. Anyone reading these posts/my commentary have seen the efforts I've made to interpret scripture using sound reasoning, scripture and Biblical principles. What she really may mean is that she is offended that someone has pointed out the holes of her view, the vv (veil view), causing her concern and discomfiture. What else can be concluded but this, when clearly the iv is not anti-Biblical.

is sheer hubris.

Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages. hu·bris. /ˈ(h)yo͞obrəs/. noun. excessive pride or self-confidence. "the self-assured hubris among economists was shaken in the late 1980s"

It would indeed be sheer hubris should someone take by their own iniative to contradict '1000s of years of history'. A reply to this thought is found in what the Bible calls 'revelation'. Paul says 1Co14.6 what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? And again 14.26 Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. God has placed the revelation process in the church. Agabus did not exhibit hubris when he said that a famine was coming. Had he received such a revelation and had shut his mouth to not share it with the church, that would have exhibited pride against the Holy Ghost. Revelations are meant to be shared, not hidden, even if seemingly seen to contradict long held ideas.

Have I received a revelation? That apparently is what is claimed but not yet proved or disproved by the examination of others, leading to a consensus of opinion either way. Have Amanah and Esaias negated the iv? Yes, but what has the negation shown other than negation. Where are the sound proofs showing conclusions of the iv wrong?

To stand with pointing finger saying "hubris", demonstrates again the practise some Christian's have of name-calling when they lack substance to disprove the claims others make. Instead, what should be done is: examine the claims, either proving or disproving them; and accepting them when not disproved. Amanah, you have not disproved the claims of the iv, yet have not accepted them either. Truth calls for its acceptance and knocks at your door. The Spirit asks that you accept. Do it today.

As stated in an earlier post, I did not set out to purposely find a view which opposed currently held views. It was not my intention to do so, using intellect or education, both of which I have very little of. But studying the subject over a long period of time, resulted with thoughts popping into my mind. I believe this to be the work of the Holy Ghost. I would say it is the Spirit's intiative to seemingly contradict '1000s of years of history', as you describe it. (By your saying this you hint that you view history as the strongest proof of the validity of the vv. If history follows an early-in-time misinterpretation of 1Co11, resulting in a long history of misinterpretation, then this only demonstrates a validity of the misinterpretation. Scripture rightly interpreted in a view without internal contradictions is what is needed. The vv has internal contradictions which long history corroborates when following a misinterpretation of 1Co11.) It would be wrong to keep silent and not share the revelation given to me. I love truth and love to share truth. The number one thought that the Spirit gave is "Why does the OT not have any commands for co/unco?' A close second is 'Why does Paul appear to be commanding that which was held as a custom for hundreds of years with the Greeks and pagans?' You may be able to explain away these questions but you haven't yet done so, though having been asked them long ago. Why the delay? Why do you not show them invalid? It is because you can't. It is impossible to refute truth with truth, or with falsehood. Truth can only corroborate truth, not contradict it. 2Co13.8 But falsehood can be refuted with truth. I've shown the vv as false, using truth.

The iv offers a cohesive explanation of what is seen in: the OT scriptures, in the NT, and in life/history. When examined and received it is seen to make sense. This is the biggest 'proof' of it's validity. The vv and ulv (uncut long view) have holes/contradictions which make make them suspect to hold as valid. God gives Man the ability to rationalize facts with thoughtful conclusions. Though the Bible nowhere explicitly mentions the iv, therefore not exhibiting it in so many words, the iv nevertheless offers a logical view of both the facts of Scripture and what is seen in life/history. To my understanding it offers a better view than the vv or the ulv.