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

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don
1. Shame from not meeting human expectations
2. Eve and the veil
3. Long hair or veil as symbols
4. OT command and progressive revelation
5. Reconciling vv. 5 and 15
6. Reconciling vv. 5 and 15 (continued)
7. Tradition of veiling
8. God commanding the veil
9. Nature's examples and symbolism

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

As always, Amanah, you have many good thoughts.

1. Shame. While not taking away anything from your response, Paul says v13 Judge among yourselves. which may lead some to conclude that he is asking for a comparison with a societal consensus. A majority view of Co society held that it was a shame for a woman to appear in public unveiled. It was also generally believed that when a person, man or woman, was shamed/embarassed/humiliated, that they covered their head or face. Any man, v4 having his head covered, thus would not bring glory to God. Paul thus can be easily seen to refer to public shame when not meeting these societal expectations.

2. Eve. You say The question about Eve and the veil is irrelevant. How can a person who teaches others say such a thing? Eve represents all women as the first woman. She would be expected to exemplify respect to God's order of authority in her sinless state as the first woman. If God expects women of today to veil, then God would expect Eve to be the first to do so. The vv fails to show Eve with a veil, while it is quite likely to see her with the long hair of the iv.

3. Symbols. the context of 1 Corinthians 11 The context is not only about veils. Hair and veils are mentioned almost equally by count. It may then be said that both hair and the veil is the context. This may be true when the comments Paul makes of men also relate to both hair and the veil. Thus, we must look elsewhere for evidence as to which of these two is the symbol. Context does not provide the answer. Looking at the Beginning for an answer, sees hair as making the most sense as the symbol. Looking at the lack of the OT scriptures, in all Ages, of commanding the veil, also answers to the veil not to be the symbol.

4. Progressive Revelation. While progressive revelation is a valid concept it fails in the topic of co/unco. Why? Because there is nothing shown at the Beginning to progress from. God gave no command for co/unco, nor even words of the order of authority. In order to have progression there must be a start. The example of sacrifice you gave in post 63, has a start and a progression. From the Beginning to Conscience to Law show no progression with co/unco. It thus is not right to say progression explains why no veil command was shown for Eve. The vv fails to cover all the bases and therefore is not God's view.

5. Reconciling v5 and v15. v15 says for her hair is given to her for a covering, while the vv says the veil is the cover. Face value reading of these verses shows a contradiction, thx to the vv. Come on over to the iv for a view which has explanations which don't show such huge holes.

6. Reconciling v5 and v15. Paul appears to contradict himself, saying in one place that the veil is the cover and in another that hair is the cover. The iv provides an explanation which reconciles these seeming contradictions. The vv says that both are covers and thus a woman needs a double cover, both a veil and long hair. The iv is the better because it explains what comes of each when the OT shows no commands for either. When not commanded but present in the OT, it is best to see the veil as coming from human reasoning and the long hair from instinctive impulses. It is the most natural explanation, making the most sense, when not OT commanded. Human nature does not change when a change of covenants takes place, making necessary any changes for co/unco with changing covenants.

7. Tradition. A) The tradition of veiling is not tied to an OT command. You thus say that no command/tradition existed in the OT for either respect for God's order or co/unco. It is the logical conclusion of your words when you say it is not tied to the OT by either command or tradition. Is the foundation of the NT not the OT? Paul indicates it is, by referring to Ge1,2. Do you not then say that the OT saints were not expected to show reverence to God's order of authority when not commanded to? What impetus do they have, according to the explanation of the vv, if not by command? That which Paul shows has its foundation in Ge1,2 but this has not found its way into godly people of the OT, by the vv, as a tradition from a command. Is this really what you want to say? I think not. But when no command or tradition is seen for co/unco in the OT, what then is its impetus? As seen at the Beginning, it is not known by command, yet is still very real. B) Amanah and Esaias will say that all the churches had a NT tradition of veiling and that Paul calls the Co's to fall in line behind the other churches. If indeed so, where is the NT command which results in the start of this NT tradition? Christians have a tradition of Communion. It had its instant start with the Lord's command. Where is any NT command which shows a start of the NT veil tradition which Amanah says all the churches held to. Amanah has said no OT command starts this NT tradition. This supposed NT tradition doesn't have its start in an OT nor any known NT command. Poof, we magically have a tradition which comes out of nowhere. Do we then, as Esaias has done, quoting Jn21.25 in post18 , say that Jesus gave a hidden command for the veil? Commands of God aren't hidden but published, so all may plainly know what is required. Rather this, it is not a NT tradition, and Paul asks them to maintain doing the veiling customs of their society, along with following their instincts which lead a woman to have the long hair her man likes. The vv makes no sense as a tradition of the NT alone.

8. Converting a custom into a command God's commands transcend cultural practices. Of course this is true, yet still fails to explain why God would in 50 ad convert a custom practised by many nations for many hundreds of years suddenly into a command. Men and women had existed since creation and could have been commanded anytime. Had God wanted to command the veil he would have done so in the Beginning, not abruptly in the middle of time. A symbol on the head is how a woman shows respect to God's order. It must be seen to exist for all women of all time. It is more logical that a woman's long hair is this symbol because it was available to Eve and to all women in all times. The iv sees Eve showing respect to God's authority with this symbol. It is illogical to think that Paul commands the veil in light of what is seen in the OT scriptures. It is possible to view what is seen in history and scripture in such a way that it is all tied together in a view without producing huge holes. Its time to face the facts and discard the vv for the iv. But some will ignore the facts and continue in their view with huge holes, to spite the facts. Amanah and Esaias both spite.

9. Nature's examples and symbolism. Excellent response. Kudos to you. This somewhat echoes Esaias singing-command response, post95, 104. While still not explaining why Eve doesn't show a veil use, nor why the OT scriptures do not show a command for co/unco, it is a good response in light of the vv. What is wrong with this is it allows Man to choose for God what pleases him by his command. If God expects, by specific commands, then he specifies what pleases him with a specific response. Cain's sacrifice from the cursed ground, was rejected though an offered sacrifice, because it failed to meet expectations - life for life - animal life/blood for Man's life. It still remains that 4" doilies do not cover (cover is a sub-theme of 1Co11) much, only doing so in a symbolical sense. A hair ornament could also be said to do as much. It would be more convenient.

The key is to understand the underlying principle of respect, authority, and worship, rather than getting bogged down in specific examples or symbols. In spite of this admonition, here we are discussing, getting bogged down with many words, trying to provide an explanation which Paul's meager words fails to do. It still must be necessary to incorporate the facts which all see, into one view which does not make huge holes. I'd suggest that the iv does so best. The vv and ucl (uncut long view) do not, when producing huge holes. It takes great hubris to hold views with huge holes while rejecting a view without holes.

Paul's meager words must be understood in the light of his expectation that the Co's would understand perfectly what he wrote of. That which he writes of in v5,6 is the custom of the veil. It is what Man has produced, and this view would make the most sense because they come from similar societies. Thus, in v5,6 he asks them to maintain the veil custom, that which their society expects. It would have produced confusion in any Corinthian's mind to hear Paul say that God now commands what they have long practised as a custom. Their response would have been "what's going on here?". The Co, who has converted from paganism to Christianity, perhaps not so much as a Jew in the Co church. Holders of the vv will say in response 'that God can do what he wants and if confusion results it is not his fault. Man must deal with it'. But rather this: if God has not commanded in the Beginning then he will not change his mind on the method used there here now in 1Co11, that which has nothing to do with anyone's place in any covenant. A new covenant does not require that rules must change for something which exists outside of covenants.The precedent he shows in the Beginning must be maintained as the foundation which all views are build on. Paul must think so for he refers to the Beginning as his base. He would emulate the method God shows. God did not command there and it must be seen that any views will also not command. First things first. First the Beginning, then the Law. What is believed of in the NT must agree with both. Paul should not be understood to command either co/unco or the veil, because the Beginning didn't. His words in 1Co11 must be understood in a light other than commanding. The Gk grammar of 'ought' is not in the imperative mood, but in the indicative mood.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Originally Posted by donfriesen1
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....

Don thinks this is my first rodeo, apparently.

2. The "her hair is given her for a covering" is part of the lesson from "nature" that illustrates the spiritual covering the woman needs when praying or prophesying....Paul is saying that since nature provides a "covering" for the woman this shows that nature is in alignment with and supportive of the need for the woman to have a spiritual covering when praying or prophesying. Not that since nature provides a covering for the woman she doesn't need a spiritual covering.

The vv/Esaias says of v15, post 170 - point2, that the natural cover of women's long hair is illustrating that the supposed command of the veil (v5,6) should be obeyed. So, to expand this thought: Naturally given long hair, whose only biological purpose is given for the glory of adornment (but not by command), shows that the veil (an unnatural article) should be used to show that a woman reverences a command to cover at worship times. I'm looking for a bridge-in-thought that connects something commanded and unnatural, with something natural and not commanded. READER, can you find this bridge? Before you attempt to cross this imaginary bridge, be aware that the vv has created a chasm which will result with you falling to your hurt, like falling off a horse at your seventh rodeo would.

Paul should not be thought to 'give an illustration from nature by a woman's long hair to support a veil command', because the only connection between them is the physical head. The custom of veiling has no connection with a custom of long hair, other than being on the head. Eye brows are also on the head but offer no comparison for a covering, though hair. But nice try, Esaias, and don't give up. Remember to put first things first. Start at the Beginning, where God first started the order of authority.

Reader, Esaias makes many reasonable points in support of the vv, which look good and logical in isolation, but not when compared with the only Word Paul holds in his hand, the OT. Where would Paul have started with his co/unco views? We know where, because he starts at the Beginning by referring to it. Any co/unco views should agree with what is seen there. The order of authority is real there, but not by command, is it. Paul shows agreement with this when not commanding but when instructing. Had God wanted to command in regard to co/unco he would have done so at the start of all things, the Beginning. He didn't then, and we shouldn't today, to emulate God's method, as Paul did.

Rather this of v5,6. That Paul instructs (he would not command a Christian to keep a man-made custom, would he. Would you?) that a Co Christian woman maintain the veil of a long-held Co custom, so as not to appear in public as a rebel against generally-held Co social expectations. This would wrongly associate a Co Christian woman with those in Co who were already rebelling against long-held social mores. This would result in tainting Christianity - a bad testimony for Jesus. v5,6 is about maintaining the good public profile of a Christian in Co society. Church times are supposed to be bridging times - a gathering place for saint and sinner alike. It wouldn't look good in this place to present as a rebel of society.

[Esaias]

Don is still wrong.

[donfriesen1]

PART 1/2

While I've asked for a critique of the iv, what has resulted from Esaias and Amanh has largely been a defence of the vv. I do not fault them for doing so, and continued to ask for counter-points to holes seen in the ulv, post 47. Many of the holes seen in the ulv also apply to the vv. Esaias replies to post 47, in post 182. Below are: the points of post 47, then in blue Esaias's counter-points. What follows Esaias's counter-points is my response to his counter-points, post 205-6.

Pt1.

1. Paul is said by uncut long to be talking about the tradition of co/unco in v2. How could a tradition of co/unco have developed during the OT when it was never commanded there? It is not logical to believe it to be just a NT tradition.

1. Paul is not talking about "the tradition of uncut/long".

There is not a lot of depth or even length here. A man of your caliber should produce more to refute my many words.

Paul should not be thought to think of traditions of co/unco. Why? Because it doesn't make sense that he would praise them in v2 for keeping traditions of co/unco and then in the remaining verses teach them about what he has just praised them for being faithful to. In verse 3 he says 'But', which contrasts what is old (traditions) with what is new (what new thing he will now teach them about co/unco. Paul is the first in the NT to speak of this subject, writing in 50 - 60 ad). Had they been traditions of the OT carried forward into the NT, then we would see commands in the OT which had made them OT traditions. They may have been just NT traditions. But when no NT commands seen pre-Paul, this then casts some doubt that they are only NT traditions. These 3 things should lead to conclusions that Paul does not refer to a tradition of co/unco in v2.

Pt2.

2. Paul says: v4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. And why does a man's covered head dishonor God? Paul gives the answer in v7 ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God. Is it then not seen that the dishonour is, because the image of God is covered? It is a logical conclusion which is contrary to established theological views of the location of the image of God. It says the image of God is in Man's spiritual parts and not in the flesh. Because the majority of apostolics say that it is the long hair alone (without any other events) that dishonours God, it must then be seen that it comes from covering the image of God seen in the flesh. Concluding as uncut long does shows the image of God in the flesh, which is a silly thought.

2. Don's second point is a mess, I can't even figure out exactly what he is trying to say. It seems to me he is trying to say Paul is being illogical in asserting the man ought not to cover his head because he is the image and glory of God, because "logic" somehow demands the image and glory of God is not associated with the physical man's physical head? I have no idea what hole Don fell into here, but I can hear his voice echoing from the bottom, vaguely.

Perhaps a re-wording would be in order, which I will now attempt to do. Paul says in v4 that a man's covered head dishonours God. And why? The answer is in v7, he is the image of God. It appears that Paul says that the image of God is covered when the head is covered. The view which the majority of apostolics take agrees with this. Long hair dishonours God because it covers the head and the image of God, robbing God of proper glory. That the image of God is being covered by covering the head is a thought which is foreign to much of the Christian world's theology, which believe the image of God is in Man's spiritual parts and not the flesh. Are you with me so far, Esaias, or are we both in the pit of my echo chamber, shivering. Because it would be thought wrong to believe that the flesh is the location of the image of God, an adjustment must be made to what it is Paul is believed to be saying.

Does he believe that just because a man's head is covered that it dishonours God or does he believe that a covered head along with other circumstances are the reason? Why word the question like this? Because A) If Paul thinks that a covered head alone is the reason it dishonours, then we need to ask why he would say this. What does Paul know or see that leads him to say this? He loves the OT, the only Word he holds in his hands, the thing which helps form his thoughts and values. What does the OT show about a covered head dishonouring God. Has it ever shown a command for a man not to cover his head? Quote the reference now, for all who have looked, not finding it. Paul's Bible does not show that a covered head dishonours God in the way that uncut long says it - with just the presence of long hair. In fact the Book Paul loves, shows long-haired men greatly loved and used of God, even commanded to have long hair, which is the opposite to what we'd expect if God/the OT held the uncut long view. This should lead all to say that Paul would not conclude from by his Book, that a covered head alone brings dishonour to God. Added to that is this. When equals as the image of God, if a covered man dishonours God, then a covered woman dishonours God, if it is just the presence of long hair, alone without any other events, which detract from the glory of God. A view needs to be found which does away with this discrepancy.

B) What is seen in the OT, the Book Paul gathers his values from, is many examples of men in shameful circumstances (shameful men do not bring proper glory to their God), covering their head. 2Sa15.30 is one of many examples. If Paul reads of these examples and forms his values from these many examples, which he would do as an OT rabbi/scholar, then what is seen in v4,7 would align with what is as a scriptural base, which scriptural base the uncut long hair view does not have outside of misinterpreted 1Co11. It has no OT support. Having OT commands and examples should have led to a search for a view which is congruent with it. And why does an OT man/woman cover the head when shamed? The same reason we do, wanting to cover the face when shamed. Our instincts tell us to so. It is not done as a command but as a response to instincts. (The ancient response to shame to cover the head, the veil/mantle, may have been by convenience because of their clothing, when a covering of the face may have sufficed.) Which of these views has the most scriptural backing? Find it and you'll find why Paul uses such few words with the Co, who were as well aware of the response to instincts as Paul was. The knowledge of these instincts was common to both, which necessitated no lengthy explanation by Paul, because they all were familiar with this as humans. Because Man is made in the image of God, Man should reflect at all times the glory of his creator. A covered man when shamed does not. A man with long hair is similarly covered as a veil would do. The cover of the veil was the symbol of the shameful event, and to wear something similar by long hair portrays a similar symbol, but not by command - by instinct. If the OT shows this symbol by instincts then those in the NT should follow suit. Paul should not be seen to command against long hair, because the Book he loves doesn't, but does show the presence of the instinct, which Esaias mocks and says isn't there.

Pt3.

3. Man and woman are equally the image of God. If a man's covered head (alone, without any other events) dishonours God then a woman's covered head should also be thought to dishonour God.

3. Don directly contradicts the apostle. Paul specifically makes a distinction between the effects and consequences and implications of the covering of the man and the covering of the woman. I'll stick to the apostle instead of joining Don down in his hole he is digging.

Well, maybe. I did put in a little qualifier by using the word 'if'. If you'd like to send me to the pit because you missed the if... then who am I to argue. I am not a giant, able to defend myself against one who is.

That man and women are equally the image of God places them on equal footing in some regard. That they are unequal physically has no contention. That they are unequal socially has no contention. How is equality as the image of God demonstrated in regard to respect for the order of God's authority? If it is by commands, then where are the commands for all the people who lived previous to Paul and the 1Co11 words? What is contended by various views is that commands are required, which should be maintained to keep them in right relationship with God. Some contend the instinct, properly regarded, should be sufficient.

I've tried to show that the instincts which are seen in both Ge3.16 and 2Sa15.30 are placed by God, and that the only Book Paul holds and loves, the OT, does not show a command for long hair or veil on a woman, nor a command against a covering for a man. The instincts placed by God were done by God for a reason, and the best for Man is to do them as designed by God. This does not mean that they are commands. When the instincts are properly regarded they result in seeing both man and women giving regard socially to God's order of authority by symbols. Giving regard to God by social symbols is a spiritual value. Symbols are spiritual values. Voila, this agrees with them being equally the image of God, as seen in the spiritual parts of Man. It only makes sense that both male and female should be said to show proper regard to the order of authority and for both to do so with symbols when they are equally the image of God. This is accomplished socially by proper response to instincts. A woman's relationship to her husband is largely a social relationship. It should be said to be seen to come from instincts because God has not ever commanded, until 1Co11 is misinterpreted so. When 1Co11 is misinterpreted, as uncut long and the veil view do, it leads to many rabbit holes, and should not be done so. Rather a view should be held, which doesn't lead to rabbit holes. This is found in the instincts view. The instinct view agrees with the facts which are seen in the whole Bible. The veil view and uncut long do not.

Pt4.

4. Holders of uncut long do not acknowledge that v5,6 refers to the veil, when the lexicographer says it does.

4. Once again, I am not a "holder of uncut/long", so...

And Esaias takes a pass on point 4. And we agree that the lex shows the custom of the veil in 1Co11, and Paul uses the veil-custom word, don't we Esaias?

Pt5.

5. With man and woman being equals as the image of God, it would be thought that both should have a symbol for showing respect to God's order of authority. The uncut long view only addresses a symbol regarding the woman.

5. Don making up theology again down in that hole of his. Besides, I don't care what "holders of uncut/long" do or don't do, I'm not one of them.

All people who read 1Co11 make up a theology of it, even the veil view is made up. Esaias attempts to smear me when using words with loaded connotations - making up. Should Esaias get a pass on point 5, or not? Does holding the veil view give the man a pass from showing symbols? My opinion is no. Perhaps Esaias will respond.

PART 2/2 to follow.

[donfriesen1]

PART 2/2

Pt6.

6. Condensed to its simplist form for the woman, the uncut long view shows what's most important for her is uncut hair, as opposed to being covered. Paul's focus is on the cover.

6. See 5.

The conclusions of uncut long, show that what is most important for the woman is whether she has uncut hair, vs having hair long enough to cover. Paul speaks of both long hair and cover.


Pt7.

7. Condensed to its simplist, the uncut long view shows a woman's cover to be a spiritual cover, while the man's is a physical cover. As both equally the image of God it would be expected that there would congruency applied to the equals.

7. Nonsense. This is just Don making things up about other people's beliefs, without regard to what they actually believe.

Pardon me for disagreeing. I have not made this up in my deep, dark, echoing pit. The uncut long view says that the moment a woman determines that she will never cut her hair is when she covered. She may only at that moment have 1" hair, yet she is believed to be covered by the determination of her will. This is the uncut's long view in its simplist form, for the woman.

People who believe the woman's covering is spiritual, in whatever form it takes, also believe the man's "uncovering" to be spiritual as well.

True, and accomplished only by an actual physical uncovering. Not so for the woman in the uncut long view. Boiled down to it, for the woman it need not actually cover, just be uncut. Thus unequal rules are applied to those who are equally in the image of God. One is accomplished physically, the other not entirely physically - by obedience to what is said to be a command - be uncut, not covered.

Pt8.

8. Paul says v13 Judge among yourselves, and v14 Does not even nature itself teach. If Paul commands from God then no appeals to nature or the ways of Man would be needed.

8. Don assumes things outside the scope of his expertise. He presumes that "if Paul is giving a command then no appeals to nature are needed". Who says so?

If God commands a thing then no other appeals to anything are required. God said, 'Have no other gods before me'. He appeals to nothing other than his will. He gives no reasons. Just do it. If Paul would command in 1Co11 then he needs no excuses of reason, or appeals to nature, or anything other than what God wants. He certainly wouldn't ask the Co to judge among yourselves to see if your human opinions agree. When the Beginning, when the Age of Innocence, when the Age of Conscience, when the Age of the Law, when Jesus says nothing of co/unco, when the other apostles say nothing about co/unco, it shows that a command is unlikely. Co/unco is a custom which is practised in Israel without command, which same custom is also practiced by many pagan nations of many times, showing congruency with the idea that Paul refers to a custom and not command.

Don, that's who. Is he an authority on the subject? Of course not.

Amen, so true.

Paul gives instruction, and appeals to nature to support the validity of his instruction. Just like he does in 1 Cor 12. He teaches about the manifold roles of the members of the church, and points them to observe how the human body operates, with various members each doing a different job. An appeal to nature is an illustration of the validity of his teaching here, and there as well.

Well said. Good point. And then, what about judge among yourselves and that other long sentence seen above? Reader, don't hold your breath for an answer. Esaias would already have given an answer to this because this isn't his first rodeo. This is not the first time it has been put forward by me.

Pt9.

9. Uncut long says v15 shows an exchanging of the veil for uncut long hair. It is not logical that God would exchange an established social practise with a spiritual practice. If anything, the non-sinful social practise would remain unchanged and a spiritual practice added on top of it.

9. Don talks a lot about "it is not logical that..." but never shows his logic.

I thought my comment showed this as self-evident, that nothing further need be said to anyone reading. Obviously not, that I need to expand my words. The readers thank you for pointing it out and giving opportunity to explain.

There is nothing illogical about "God exchanging a social practice with a spiritual practice", whatever that even means.

How can you object to something you can't understand? Does not compute. The social practice of the veil is exchanged by the spiritual practise, in the uncut long view, according to its erroneous interpretation of v15. They believe that the word 'for' should be understood to mean 'instead of, in exchange'. Long hair is exchanged for the veil. While this meaning of 'for' is one of acceptable correct meanings, it is illogical to do so. See my commentary, post 1, which Esaias has indicated he has read. Pages11-15; p.32 @Someone is distorting; p.46 @para 2; p.116@ Found in Apostolic lit.

Since I do not believe Paul is exchanging long hair in place of the covering, I will leave it to others to argue with him about that. But it is definitely not "illogical" for God to do that if He so chose to do that.

No? Not illogical to tell Christians that a custom practised for centuries has now become a tradition for you to hold by command? I'd say, its my opinion, that God would not transform a custom into a tradition/command for the Christian. (See 1Co7.17-24, where he tells the Co to keep the social standing they were called in. If he tells them to keep thier social position, then the keeping of a custom is not far behind, is it?) Instead, he would tell the Christian to maintain the customs of their country, and I'll give you an additional command to follow, if so. In Ro13 he tells the Ro Christian to keep gov't laws, which are only laws of society (from a governing body). Do what society tells you to do, he says in so many words, but for command sake? No for conscience sake. Paul does the same in 1Co11 with the veil custom and their custom of long hair. Thus, it would not make sense to say a custom has been exchanged for a spiritual command.

But, you know, the air in this pit may not be very good down here. It, along with the echos and darkness may be affecting my thinking. I may need to get some good air up around the gods where Esaias resides. Readers, you may notice I sometimes say nice things about Esaias, in all sincerity, because I think them to be true. And Esaias usually says bad things about me. What motivates him? What motivates me to make negative comments of him, as I've just done? The snide comments he makes, makes me respond in kind. My first preference is not to make any comments such as these. Criticize opinions? Of course. Of course. Necessary.

Pt10.

10. There are no commands found for co/unco from Creation till Paul. That this is true shouts something. Anyone not listening should remove the ear plugs.

10. Don should remove his own ear plugs and listen to himself affirm that "God can command something ONCE and it can be ANYWHERE in Scripture".

And so Esaias makes a non-response response. Esaias doesn't want to hear it, nor respond to a good point. Instead he diverts. Oh well.

Pt11.

11. Why does the pagan Gk have a word and a practise in their society, (komao -long uncut hair), which shows them using it for hundreds of years, when what they've been practising is said by uncut long to be a command of God? Does not compute.

11. Once again Don does not compute. I would ask him, "Why do pagan Greeks have a term for washing feet, which has been used for however long Greek has been around, when washing feet is in fact something commanded by Christ? They've been doing something commanded by Christ!

Hey, what happened to your not commenting on uncut long?

Your referencing leads to an examination of both practises. Jesus showed footwashing as an example that there would not be big shots in his Kingdom. Is this how the pagan Greek practiced it and did Jesus then borrow it into the Church (if you believe it should be followed like communion)? Or did Jews also practice foot washing as a social custom and Jesus used a common practise (also of many nations) for illustrative purposes. You may be wrong to suggest that Jesus borrowed from pagan Greeks. He borrowed from Jews. Do you have evidence to show otherwise?

Does the comparison for hair stand up to the same scrutiny? The Hebraic Jews used Greek language for everyday life. That the LXX exists and the NT was written in Gk testifies to this. Paul uses a Gk word which reflects a long held Gk practice. Their women practiced long uncut hair. Because of this borrowing of language, Paul is said by uncut long to be teaching/commanding uncut long hair. It thus is shown that Paul turns a custom into command. (What isn't determined by the word komao, is whether uncut means so in a strict sense or in a practical sense. Most would see the Gk using it in a practical sense. That they had long hair didn't prevent trimming of it, which the uncut long prevents because it desires to be technical and not practical in its definition.)

Does not compute!"

Yep, Don does compute and does it well. Esaias fails to convincingly show errors of my reasoning. What should be done when truth is presented? Should it be accepted or rejected? Wise persons give it serious slow examination and acceptance when not refuted.

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

Additional comments to:

Pt2. Esaias says he doesn't understand what I'm saying, (I can't even figure out exactly what he is trying to say) yet he is able to put together words to refute what he doesn't understand! If I don't understand the language of someone speaking to me, I cannot correctly refute what they say. See also p136 - pt1, paragraph 1,2. He demonstrated here that he does not understand the iv.

Pt3. It only appears that I directly contradict Paul. What I really do contradict is a misinterpretation of Paul's words. I say that the ulv's interpretation leads to a contradiction of theological views of the location of the image of God. The ulv shows, that manly long hair alone, without other events, leads to this.

Pt4. Esaias is in a minority place, not believing in the ulv which the majority of Apostolics believe in. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Esaias calls me a heretic, p145, 255, which the majority might call him. But rather than use such strong terms of another's Biblical view (the iv is just as much a Biblically-derived view as the ulv and vv) what Paul admonishes us to do in such situations is found in Ro14; 15.1-7. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing and/or https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ad.php?t=55037
for the proper Christian response in situations like this.

Pt11. Either uncut long hair or the veil were practised for hundreds of years as a custom by the Gks. Therefore what is said about the ulv, can also be said of the vv. They both turn long held customs into commands of God.

[donfriesen1]

MIS-APPLIED FACTS?

Esaias makes strong statements, post 207, against donfriesen1's thought that Paul asks the Co Christian to maintain the veil-custom, so as not to be seen as a social rebel. This had been said by Don because some historian's statements said that a counter-cultural revolution took place in Paul's day. Some Co women were said to discard the veil, to rebel. Some Co men were said to veil, to rebel. If so, then Paul could be seen instructing Christians counter to the counter-revolution. This may be background knowledge not directly referred to in 1Co11, but common knowledge to all of Co times, not needing to be detailed. It is a circumstance when history may be seen to add light to unclear Bible passages. Depending on the view of the holder of this knowledge, it may or may not be used to determine what Paul has said. The iv does. Thus, Paul can be seen teaching against the counter-revolution in v4-6. [Plz note that I have not been dogmatic in this opinion.]

But Esaias implies, in p207, perhaps dogmatically (he says 'But this is entirely wrong, and unhistorical.' He says elsewhere that the iv is heretical, therefore must also call the ulv heretical, intolerant of any other view? You may also have noticed the times I've complemented Esaias of his good points and has he reciprocated?), that there were no cultural standards known (to rebel against) and implies that Paul cannot therefore be seen to be counteracting it, by instructing Co Christians to veil so as not to be seen rebelling.

What you will notice, by close examination of Esaias's point in p207, is that he applies what is historically known of religious practices to secular practices. Doing so confuses the facts. Applying what is known of 'practices of religious rites' (perhaps only a few hours of a certain worship day) to the 'practises of the every day times of public life' and would be adding distorted, untrue weight to the thought that there were no veiling norms. I'm highlighting this because Esaias may be unaware what he has done.

That said, it is agreed that there was no consensus of practise, that every Greco-Ro group and nation, had a uniform veil custom. As with all people and customs, never is it seen that all nations or groups all practise the same customs. This may be seen in present day North American nations.

Searching history shows a general consensus of the thought that it was generally believed that Ro and Gk women veiled. Esaias thus, may be wrong. And thus, when donfriesen1 says Paul teaches the Co Christian to fall in line with doing the custom so as not to show agreement with rebels, it may be true. As with all groups and cities, never is it seen that eveyone falls in line with obedience to customs. There will always be some not practicing.

The greater question from history is (not secular history but OT history), why does God not command either the uncut hair of the ulv or the veil of the vv during this time. From the Beginning to Paul there are no commands for either. It is the elephant in the room which Esaias/Amanah haven't shown good explanation of. If God commands in the NT, then he would also have commanded the same in the first times. He didn't, creating a huge hole for both the ulv and vv. We should find a whole-Bible view without holes. Is the iv it, or is it wrong? Esaias and Amanah have failed to convincingly show it wrong.

[donfriesen1]

We are told by scholars that to form a doctrine on any subject, that all of scripture should be consulted to do so. If there are any seeming discrepancies/holes or seeming contradictions of any verses noted, then an explanation must be found to harmonise it with what most verses say. How has this admonition been regarded in relation to 1Co11?

Apostolics read 1Co11 and have formed two dominant views. 1. Uncut long hair is the cover for a woman. Short hair is seen as the uncovering for the man. This is the view that the majority of Apostolics hold. 2. A veil of sorts is the cover for the woman. The man is expected to have short hair.

What is seen in the formation of a doctrine of 1Co11 is what has been called a microscopic examination of 1Co11 verses. Its words and phrases are focussed on and examined in detail. This is done almost to the detriment of not regarding what the OT plainly shows. Thus, the microscopic examination of 1Co11 almost ignores a macroscopic examination of the OT. It is almost forgotten that the OT is the foundation for what is believed in the NT. In other words, what Paul is said to believe should be seen in the OT, because that is the only scripture he holds in his hands. If not seen there, then what he is said to believe has come from revelation alone, outside of a scriptural source. Hasn't NT doctrine always seen its source in the OT? He6.1,2 gives a list of the principal first doctrines of the NT. These all have their source in the OT. (Not listed because it is said and believed without question or need of mention is, that God is One.)

The macro view of the OT shows no commands for either the uncut long view or the veil view. It has no commands for microscopic examination.

The OT actually shows commands contrary to what the uncut long view says of long hair. The OT shows God commanding men to have long hair. While not ignoring this, the ulv gives a strained explanation: Some men are given allowance, an exception by God to do what is normally considered sinful for others. Can any other examples be given of an exception given to do sin?

An explanation/doctrine of 1Co11 should be in sync with the OT, the foundation. The ulv and vv are not. God does not there command either uncut long hair or the veil, as the cover. Because Paul mentions veils and hair almost equally in 1Co11, a view must be held that gives regard to both this and the OT. The instincts view does so, giving an explanation in agreement with what both the OT and 1Co11 speaks of. It may be the view to hold without showing holes.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, is lonely

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, is lonely

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 are replying to me.

By posting this, it is a reply.