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

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Evang.Benincasa;1618815]The following is quoted from another post in this thread. "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]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618816]The commentary below reconciles vs 5&15.

Women didn't need to be taught to have long hair as a shorn head was commonly acknowledged as being shamed. Paul's teaching is that to be uncovered is equally shameful as being shorn.

1. Agreed, in the following regard, for hair: Long hair was thought to be shameful to be cut in Co society because the majority of people regarded long hair as beautiful, an adornment. Why would anyone want to cut-short what everyone thought was beautiful? Thus, the thought of cutting-short that which helped beautify was distasteful to most. If a woman's hair was cut-short or shaved, it was thought outrageous, and shamed the woman who did so because she has acted against societal norms and against her own beauty. These thoughts held by the majority had not come from a command of God. They had come from life. Instincts are part of life. Paul does not desire that women have long hair because he has seen an OT command for doing so. There is no such command. He desires women to live in accord with their God-given instincts.

2. Agreed, in the following regard, for the veil. The veil was thought to be needful in Co society because the majority of people regarded it needful. Why would anyone not want to veil when everyone thought it was needful? Thus, the thought of not veiling was distasteful to most. If a woman didn't veil, it was thought outrageous, and shamed the woman who did so because she has acted against societal norms. These thoughts held by the majority had not come from a command of God. They had come from life. Paul does not desire that women veil because he has seen an OT command for doing so. There is no such command. He wants the Co Christian woman not to act in a way which would be against societal norms. Wear the veil.

If any reader wants to find absolute proofs for any particular view then they can stop looking. They aren't there for any view. The way the Lord has chosen to write scripture has left this subject in such a way that there aren't absolute proofs. It thus is a test from God, of how we regard those who hold to a view other than ours. Do we still esteem them in high regard? Receive them into fellowship? Do we not despise them or judge them as less than ourselves. Do we not treat them the same, giving them seats of less prominence? See Ro14,15 for Paul's teaching of people who have opposing opinions on scriptural subjects. In the majority of apostolic circles, a woman with short hair isn't seen behind the pulpit, nor a long-haired man. (Jesus was baptized by a long-haired Nazirite, indicating approval. It is today thought abhorrent that any male preacher have long hair. No apostolic would want their kids baptized by a long-haired man or a short haired woman. These attitudes/practises have evolved which show apostolics acting scripturally-contrary to Paul's teaching in Ro14,15, because of a misinterpretation of 1Co11.

It is logical to assume that the view which would be held by the majority should be the view which is known to have the least amount of holes. I contend that the instinct view has the least objections. Any new view is first viewed with suspicion, because it is contrary to that which has been (long) thought to be truth but may get adherents to it, who are willing to examine it objectively. Thus the instincts view will be viewed with suspicion, even rejected by many, though being scripturally-derived.

My hope is that it will be looked at objectively and seen not to have the holes which are glaringly obvious in other views. NUMBER ONE hole, by a long shot, in both the veil view and the uncut long view are the absence of any OT commands similar to that which are said to be in 1Co11. Don't bother looking for them, for you won't find them. (What you will see is apostolics poring over the OT, finding verses which they then will twist and contort in such a way as to make them appear to fit their view. But close examination disproves their contention.) Any not seeing this absence-point as extremely relevant to the topic has willfully pulled the wool over their own eyes. Apostolics must not turn a blind eye to this truth. Explain for yourself, if not to this thread, why there are no commands for co/unco in the OT scriptures. Any who turn aside truth's such as these do so to their own harm.

Plz refer to post 100. The response there is also a response for your post here.

[Amanah]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


All scripture is inspired and profitable for doctrine. Doesn't matter how many times it appears in scripture. However, some bible translations are more reliable than others. The KJV is the gold standard for comparison.

For example:

Numbers 5:18 translation variation based on which codex is used.

The difference between "uncover" (KJV) and "unbind" (ESV) in Numbers 5:18 stems from variations in Hebrew texts and interpretations.

Hebrew Words:

1. *פָּרַע* (parah): Means "to loosen" or "to unbind" (used in Leningrad Codex and most Masoretic texts).
2. *גָּלָה* (galah): Means "to uncover" or "to reveal" (used in some Masoretic texts and Textus Receptus).

Textual Variations:

1. *Leningrad Codex* (ESV's base text): Uses *פָּרַע* (unbind).
2. *Textus Receptus* (KJV's base text): Uses *גָּלָה* (uncover).

Translation Choices:

1. KJV follows *גָּלָה*, translating as "uncover."
2. ESV follows *פָּרַע*, translating as "unbind."

Interpretations:

"Unbind" implies loosening the woman's hair, symbolizing vulnerability.
"Uncover" depicts removing a head covering, which implies shame.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618817]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

And so you would then say that women are commanded to wear a veil for these times. Plz say, if God commands a woman to wear such a veil during such times, what kind of veil is acceptable to the Lord. Plz point to some scripture which will indicate God's acceptable veil. Surely the Lord would not leave to chance obedience or whim of Man, for what he says is necessary by command to plz him, to avoid something as serious as sin. Or does he let Man determine that which will satisfy God's need-to-cover command? Plz indicate which scripture could be referenced that indicates that God says Man can choose which cover pleases the Lord. (One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One is a specific number which excludes. It specifies one to the exclusion of all others. Count all the 'ones' shown by Paul in Eph 4.4-6, a favourite passage of apostolics. Does Paul now leave the principle of specifics for a principle of many. You now get to choose which cover to use? Doesn't make sense.)

Here is another example of lack of understanding the Bible and the nature of doctrine.

The only one who has a proper understanding of scripture is Esaias. If any do not agree with Esaias they are wrong and disagreeing with scripture. Is this what you want us to believe, my brother in Jesus? Of course not. You wish to show that there are differences of Biblical conclusions, that I have errors in reasoning resulting in errors of conclusions.

Don presumes that if God commands something, he will also specify everything that can be specified in regards to the particular command. But notice the following:

You now here present good arguments which support your view. Kudoos to you from me.

Ephesians 5:19 KJV
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

Here, we are commanded to sing to one another. What psalms? What hymns? What spiritual songs? Which melody? These things are not specified. Does God tell us to sing but fail to tell us what songs, and what melodies, to sing? Obviously, we are to choose the songs, the melodies. God gives a command, and we are to fulfill that command. That which is specified is that which must be done, the means and mechanisms, if not specified, are to be figured out by the believer and the congregation.

Your analogy fails because of the differences shown. It is God who commands singing of Psalms, Hymns, Melodies. God shows many Psalms, Hymns, Melodies to choose from. If your analogy was a good analogy it would show the Lord providing Man many veils to choose from. He hasn't specified even one, let alone many. You are not a dumb man, knowing names of laws of reason and logic, yet you present arguments like this even when you know it is unsound. What motivates such a lowering of yourself with such methods?

Another example:

Numbers 15:38 KJV
Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:

But how shall the fringe be made? What material? What design? How big? It was commanded, yet there were no specifics other than it be a fringe, in the border of the garment, and that it have a ribband of blue upon it. Beyond that, there are no specifications. Clearly, the individual and the congregation were to figure that part out themselves.

Agreed, you shown good reasoning; to which I'll add another example. The Lord commanded Moses to tell the people not to approach Mt. Sinai, on pain of death. And how is it determined when a mount is approached, when it has no, none, nada, clearly defined borders to cross, which would cause their death. The Lord tells Moses to set boundaries. Moses (Man) is allowed to set the boundaries of that which he (God) has commanded. The differences of these two examples and the other example (what is said about 1Co11) is that God has clearly spoken a command in the two examples, but hasn't in the other. There are no clearly given words of God for what is said is a command of God - women must veil. There is no dispute that Paul (God) tells the Co woman to veil. What is disputed is whether it is a command of God. If seen as a command it causes conflicts with the rest of scripture. Your analogy fails to conclusively convince.

This is how the veil view causes conflicts with the rest of scripture: Paul bases what he says in 1Co11 on the foundation seen in the OT. Paul thus says that there is a foundation laid in the Beginning. And the foundation seen in the Beginning is his 1Co11 foundation, because he transfers it to 1Co11. If the foundation is seen, then what is built on this foundation? The structure said to be built on it, in 1Co11 is, by Esaias's view, 'that women should wear a veil'. When we look at the foundation in the Beginning, we don't see this same structure on the foundation there. There are no commands for a woman to wear a veil in the Beginning (no such structure). The structure shown in the Beginning on this foundation is this: Man is expected by some unwritten/unspoken law to show respect for God's order of authority. This expectation hasn't been commanded. It magically appears when Adam and later Eve appear. It is God who has built this structure and he has never dismantled it. If he has dismantled this structure then plz present some Biblical evidence thereto. Any who say that 1Co11 builds another structure other than the existing, are seen tearing down what God has built, trying to replace it or are adding an addition to it. This should not be done. Don't destroy or add to, the structure God has built or try to replace it with another. The original foundation and structure are secure, having been built by God to his specifications using his materials and his methods. The veil view attempts to undo that by saying that 1Co11 commands what God hadn't commanded at the Beginning.

Yes, God actually expects His people to think about things and come to some decisions. God did not create robots. Look here:

Genesis 2:19 KJV
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Man was given responsibility, he was given a task (a command, if you will), yet he was allowed to participate in the decision making process. It was up to Adam to decide the names of the animals. If these things are true (they are) Agreed., then it is entirely reasonable that God would command the head covering for women while leaving it up to the believer to decide on the cut, design, color, etc.

Sure...but. The question still needing an answer is: Did he?

Could he have? Most would say he could have, reasonable to assume he may have, but any who make doctrine from scripture don't want as a foundation stone 'he could have'. They want to see a stone saying 'he did'. What you present here as a foundation stone is 'he could have'. I agree 100% that God gives Man 'responsibility and the abiltiy to do' what God commands, allowing Man to figure out any broad command without detailed requirements, in their own way. What is missing/not seen in the Beginning, is any indication from God with words, that symbols are commanded to be displayed to show respect for God's order of authority. We have God's clear indication with words that he wants Adam to name all creatures. But no clear indication in the Beginning that he wants women to veil. Your explanation then shows that Man must first decipher without any command from God 1. a needed respect for God's order of authority; and then decipher 2. that a veil is that needed respect (in a time when the idea of veils/clothing does not yet exist). Could A&E decipher God's order of authority? Yes, because another human, Paul, is seen doing so. And he wasn't as near to the situation as they were. Could A&E have deciphered a need for a veil? I'd be interested to hear any ideas how they could. (Was it, as Michael Marlowe contends, that just because it is natural that a woman have long hair that she would then easily assume that a veil is also suitable/required? Did you hear the scoffing sounds just now?) I don't think they could have. Also missing in the Beginning is any expected word from God which indicate that God commands a showing of respect for his order of authority. Paul may be the first ever to give any indication of an idea that there is an order of authority. We today may only be aware of it because of brilliant Paul. Who else in scripture indicates anything specifically alike? I know of no one. (I believe, without being able to present evidence thereto, that a situation had arisen in loved Co which drove Paul to his knees, which resulted in his search for an answer. 1Co11 is the result.)

In fact, this shows the wisdom of God, in that the command can be obeyed across all cultures and all times without imposing any particular local culture upon another.

Indeed it would be so, if proved to be truth.

Thus, in conclusion, the lack of specific instructions on the make and model of the headcovering in no way lessens the obligation of the believer to obey the instructions that are given.

As shown from my arguments it isn't likely to be so. Your view has good points, which shouldn't be ignored, but has points which are out of harmony with the Bible as a whole. For that reason it should be set aside until a view comes along which aligns with the scripture as a whole, doing so with the least amount of holes and inconsistency. To date, I believe the instinct view to be that view.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by diakonos

It’s Groundhog Day.

Sad isn't it?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, you lost the debate. You believe the Apostle Paul was only making suggestions to the Corinthian church. This isn’t a new misinterpretation in Churchanity, but an old one. Where some believe Paul was dealing with a current culture of Hellenic Roman principles of modesty. You post the same arguments ad nauseam.

The Apostle Peter pointed out that the Apostle Paul wrote his epistles according to God’s wisdom, not man’s wisdom. The wisdom given to Paul by the Holy Ghost. The Apostle Peter goes on to say that in Paul’s epistles (100% of them) that there were truths which were hard for the unlearned and unstable to learn. Yet, would not only twist what Paul said, but also the rest of the Bible, to their own destruction.

Paul is instructing the church at Corinth and tells them that there should be no arguments about what he is teaching. 1 Corinthians 11:16 states clearly that what Paul teaches is the ONLY custom which all the churches follow. Hence the reason there would be NO contention concerning what he taught on the subject.
Which in short, the Apostle Paul wouldn’t be posting in this thread with you. Since he made it clear as crystal the first time he penned it.

.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618816]

The commentary below reconciles vs 5&15.

Does not. See below. But if it said to, plz explain how so?

Women didn't need to be taught to have long hair as a shorn head was commonly acknowledged as being shamed.

Agreed, as a custom. And the veil view attempts to make the veil custom of v5 a command.

Paul's teaching is that to be uncovered is equally shameful as being shorn.

To quote MM, Michael Marlowe, 1/2) "There was certainly no need for Paul to convince the Corinthian women that they should not crop their hair. That is not an issue at all here. It is simply taken for granted..." And 2/2) "(18) But this is very strange, and unlikely in the historical context, where cloth headcoverings and veils were so commonly used." Both veil and long hair are commonly known according to MM.

What is very strange and overlooked, because it is so stinking obvious, is that Co-society women didn't need to be taught either about long hair or about the veil. Yet here in 1Co11, we see the apostle telling them to do what everyone already knows as obvious. Paul is reminding them that what is known to them should also obviously be done by them. Where is it seen as obvious and why? In their pagan society; both long hair and the veil. These things are obvious in pagan Co society only because they are held customs, but not traditions based on commandments of God (which don't exist. Quote the OT commandments for either. Quote the NT commandments, other than what is misinterpreted in 1Co11 as out of sync with the OT. All agree that the whole of scripture must be consulted when making a doctrine. All agree that all of what is seen in the whole Bible must be put together in harmony in a doctrine. The veil view does not achieve this. The OT does not command veils. The veil view as a command is out of sync with the OT but not as an OT custom.)

Both long hair and the veil are obvious to the Co pagan and the Jew, as customs, and Paul wants the Co Christian woman to do both but for varying reasons.

To follow along using your/MM's line of reasoning (Paul wanting the Co to do what is obvious/common), Paul would now command both of these obvious things and not just the one. What explanation can you give for Paul only commanding the one, the veil, in light of both v5 and v15 and inlight that both the veil and long hair were common to the pagan/Co Christian? If Paul commands one he would also command the other. Better yet, in my opinion, he commands neither, though wanting the Co Christian to do both. If he commands both it produces an irreconcilable conflict. If he only commands one, then which? v5 or v15? Better is to see him not commanding at all. This then would show all, (the Beginning, Age of Concscience, the Law, the NT) as agreeing there is no command.

Believing that v5 commands the veil view then would show the veil-view/you saying Paul is contradicting himself in v15. Paul says, v15, that God has given long uncut hair for the veil for her hair is given to her for a covering. Which one is it? Is it the veil of v5 as the cover, or the long uncut hair of v15, as the cover? You will not be able to provide an answer to this question because of your veil views. You've said in your posts that what MM says reconciles 5&15, but just saying so hasn't proved anything. v5 is not reconciled with v15. Just saying so doesn't cut it. Try again. Or, do the easier - switch views to hold one without holes seen in the veil view. Leave the misinterpretation of the veil view far behind. Walk in truth. But the following is my guess as to what will happen with you. You will not want to change your veil-view and will fade-off because you have no answers to these objections. Truth asks us to follow, not fade-off in the opposite direction.

Paul actually says the words of v5 and they must not be ignored. What Paul says in v5 leads some to say that Paul commands the veil. What Paul says of the veil fits quite well with the customs of many nations of various eras. Paul should be seen by all as asking the Co Christian to maintain a custom of theirs. Plz provide a line of reasoning which would explain God turning an existing custom into a command, versus saying a custom should be adhered to. Saying God turns a custom into a command does not compute. Can examples be provided showing the Lord converting other customs into commands? They exist, but I won't now show how. To do so here would misrepresent the truth shown by Paul in 1Co11.

As pointed out in another post, MM outright contradicts the Word of God by contradicting Paul, doing so without explanation. Doing so should make anyone view MM with suspicion, closely examining his claims.

[donfriesen1]

Astounding depth of exegesis shown in posts 97, 99, 105. Keep up the good work shown here and we'll gradually drift back to the Dark Ages.

[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.