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

[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 need to stop lying.

You say this but then PM me your love letters.

Also I'm not a Roman Catholic so keep your Xmas cheer to yourself. You religious goof ball. lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Don is wrong.

[diakonos]

Guys, pearls before swine.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Guys, pearls before swine.

Yes, that’s exactly what’s happening here.

[donfriesen1]

Amanah's arguments for the vv shows her concluding that it is God's view for all to hold. It is: women must wear a veil, or something similar, for worship services. Note: She has said little, if anything, about the male's role to show respect to God's order of authority.


A) Her reasons and proofs are the following:
1. Paul plainly says so. v5,6
2. The tone of 1Co11 is commanding. Paul always taught authoritively, as commanding. p275, 280
3. That Man has a sinful nature necessitates God's response in giving his Word. Therefore, 1Co11 as a command fits this context. p280
4. The context of 1Co shows Paul addressing church probs. Therefore, the veil is only for church times. p129
5. Paul shows the consequence of not following his commands. p275
6. All the churches practised the same things. p55
7. OT women veiled: Rebekah's example. Law of Jealous husband. Tamar's example. p59, 62
8. Gk/He word meanings support the vv. post36, 54, 56, 103
9. Gk word epi shows spatial proximity of the cover on the head. p54
10. Paul uses the veil symbolically. Symbolism of the veil is of spiritual realities. p36
11. Symbolic nature of the veil isn't related to any particular culture. p36
12. Jewish culture valued public displays of reverence. (This almost contradicts 11.) p54
13. Nature gives examples in support of the vv. p36
14. History shows the vv as the predominant view. p288


B) Amanah's arguments against the iv are as follows:
1. Paul is not saying a woman needs to have long hair to look attractive. He is saying a woman needs to have a symbol of authority on her head. p54
2. Progressive revelation is the reason why no OT command for the veil is given. p63
3. A definition of gut feelings or carnal nature is substituted for the iv definition used of instincts. p147, 191, 217
4. Abortion shows women with instincts of killing. p249
5. Views of 1Co11, other than traditional ones, are showing hubris. p287
6. Novel arguments against scripture should not used. p291


C) Questions asked but not answered by Amanah:
1. Is it not possible that Paul in 1Co11 refers to shame coming from not meeting human expectations? p41
2. Did God expect Eve to wear a veil during times of worship, before the Fall and before the invention of clothing? p41, 61
3. Either long hair or a veil could equally fill the visual-representation symbol role, could they not? p61
4. No reasonable answer has been given by her to explain why the OT hasn't commanded the veil, nor even commanded co/unco. Progressive revelation fails to as an answer. p63, 292
5. What explanation can be given to reconcile v5 with v15? One says a woman should be veiled and the other that long hair is given for the veil? p68
6. Plz explain how "The commentary below reconciles v5&15." p94, 102
7. Though not asked of her specifically, she does not respond to the thought that tradition of v2 can not refer to a tradition of OT veiling, when the veil was never OT commanded which would start a tradition.
8. Amanah also offers no response to the thought that, if God commands the veil, that he is seen as changing a long held veil custom held in many times by many nations, into a command.
9. Amanah believes that nature provides examples which support the view that God commands the veil. For example: a woman's long hair. She also says that no certain covering is specified by God as the symbol. Therefore, a 4" doily or another symbol could be used, which may then fail as actually being a cover. These two concepts do not agree. One, nature's examples, is somewhat specific, and the other results in any/many symbols. p36, 235


D) It should be agreed that Amanah presents good arguments for the vv. When they are considered alone, they are good proofs for the vv.

Amanah correctly states, post 36, that Paul takes from Ge2, the concept of 'God's order of authority'. While showing this, does she also agree that God does not there show, in the same location where the order of God's authority originates, any commands to show this respect by symbols?

What the vv fails to do is provide a view which is in sync with the OT scriptures. The Beginning, the Age of Conscience, the Law all show no commands for a veil, when it should if the vv is God's view. What is seen, of co/unco and God's order of authority, in the Beginning should also be seen consistently throughout remaining history. It laid the foundation which all views should agree with and should be built upon. When the OT shows no commands for co/unco or even for a veil, this is consistent with what is seen at the Beginning - no commands. The first things, making precedence for what follows, should be considered first, when making a doctrine.

That much of history after Pentecost has held to the vv may only testify that a consistent misinterpretation of 1Co11 has been held through much of history.

That Gk/He word meanings have been used to support the vv is not surprising. All views do so and should do so. Doing so does not necessarily prevent a misinterpretation of facts. A misinterpretation of the scripture can come when any language is used.

Paul is seen by many as commanding in 1Co11. All should agree that this is by conjecture, when the words he uses aren't necessarily so seen. The word 'ought' is not necessarily a command.The gk grammar mood is not the imperative, it is not commanding. It could refer to cultural expectations. The way he writes can be correctly interpreted other than commanding.

Paul is seen to ask for a symbol. What is unclear as the symbol is of much dispute and discussion. If it was indisputably the veil then much discussion would not be had. That disputes exist shows a need for a view which addresses all the facts, putting them together, without holes in reasoning, showing consistency and agreement with all scripture and thought. If the iv does not, it has not yet been shown not to do so.

Amanah has shown little time has been spent to tear down the iv. What counter arguments she has put forward have been weak and answered to.

That Amanah hasn't responded to all questions may be showing that the vv has no answers to important questions. The view that God holds of co/unco would be both sensible, without holes, and would answer questions because God would not present something which doesn't. In my view the iv is God's view. But it is new and hasn't had a lot of testings. Time will tell.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Guys

Readers, plz note: Diakonos says Guys forgetting the women who post here. He is an infrequent contributor to this thread. See post 15, 97, 160, 198, 224, 232, 264, 303. He hasn't yet offered any depth of Scriptural reasoning, nor yet quoted a scripture. But life has a lot of surprises and he may yet do so. Let's hope.

[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 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]

For what it's worth:

Angels do not bring reviling accusation against those whose life is ruled by the flesh. 2Pe2.10,11 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord. This leads to the question, in light of v10 of 1Co11, of how the angels would respond to a Christian's fleshly refusal to co/unco their head. Would angels bring an accusation before the Lord for a fleshly believer but not for these described as unjust? How is what is believed, about 1Co11 and angels, reconciled with what Peter says. Any comments?

[Amanah]

Don

1. Shame from not meeting human expectations
In the context of 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is addressing a specific issue related to worship and the roles of men and women. The focus is on honoring God and maintaining order in worship, rather than human expectations.

2. Eve and the veil
The question about Eve and the veil is irrelevant to the discussion, as the context of 1 Corinthians 11 is about worship in the early Christian church, not about pre-Fall or pre-clothing practices.

3. Long hair or veil as symbols
While both long hair and a veil could serve as visual symbols, in the context of 1 Corinthians 11 Paul is specifically addressing the use of a veil (or covering) as a symbol of authority and respect in worship.

4. OT command and progressive revelation
The argument that the OT doesn't command the veil is irrelevant. Progressive revelation is a valid concept, as God's revelation to humanity unfolds throughout Scripture.

5. Reconciling vv. 5 and 15
Verse 5 addresses the specific situation of women prophesying or praying in worship, while v. 15 discusses the general principle of long hair being a natural covering for women. The two verses are not contradictory; rather, they are supportive.

6. Reconciling vv. 5 and 15 (continued)
The commentary reconciles the verses by explaining that v. 5 addresses a specific situation, while v. 15 provides a general principle.

7. Tradition of veiling
The tradition of veiling is not tied to an OT command. It is commanded by Paul for the NT church.

8. God commanding the veil
God's commands transcend cultural practices.

9. Nature's examples and symbolism
The supposed contradiction between the specificity of nature's examples (e.g., long hair) and the flexibility of symbolism (e.g., a 4" doily) can be resolved by recognizing that Paul is using natural examples to illustrate a principle, rather than providing an exhaustive list of acceptable symbols. The key is to understand the underlying principle of respect, authority, and worship, rather than getting bogged down in specific examples or symbols.