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

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618818]

Quote: Originally Posted by donfriesen1

When Paul is seen as commanding the veil in v5 as a spiritual cover that all should keep, it creates problems because the whole of scripture fails to present this as a view to be held.

Sorry, but you already conceded this point, when you admitted God can command something ONCE, and it can be anywhere in the Bible.

Nay, sir. You misrepresent the question and how it was answered. See post 51, 52; points 2,3. Check your facts. You thus twist my words to say something I didn't. Esaias is back to using the twisting tricks he likes to use when boxed-in. I certainly did not concede that if Paul is really seen commanding the veil in 1Co11 that God need not do so elsewhere. Nor that if the only Bible command for co/unco is seen in a 1Co11 command, that it is also in effect for the Beginning, retroactive all the way back to the Beginning (where truly, there are no such commands given). You have not taken the time to properly understand what I said, or I failed to convey what I mean. That said, would you now say that the conversation does have some points worthy to consider, worthy of continuation?

Yet, you still persist AS IF that point was never addressed and dealt with. That is what renders this conversation pointless.

Esaias looks for an excuse for an easy, seen-honourable exit. He needs none as a voluntary contributor, and hopefully keeps contributing. You will notice that I have acknowledged and responded to the points Esaias makes. You will noice that Esaias hasn't responded to all 11 points I made in post 47. Most apply equally to the veil view as to the uncut long view. He offers no response to some things said in post 52, perhaps because the truth presented is unanswerable, not contradictable. He now says he will run off, the conversation being pointless, doing as he usually does when he has nothing to counter points others make, saying 'you're wrong' and not saying why. He wants to look good on the way out when he has failed to respond to valid points. Perhaps he is beginning to see the holes in the veil view and doesn't want to face them publicly to do an about face. Truth knocks at the door and asks admittance, not wanting the door slammed in its face or given the silent treatment - I'm not home. Man up. Face the facts presented. Either prove them wrong conclusively or embrace them. Running off is not an acceptable response to truth while saying 'this conversation is pointless'. That is a cop-out.

Plz, Esaias, provide a meaningful explanation, without holes, that explains why God makes no commands in the Beginning. This logic must be escaping you, because you offer no meaningful explanation of it. If God commands in 1Co11 on this subject, then he would have also commanded at the time when the subject first came up, the Beginning. He didn't. Why not? Ponder this fact for yourself, before rushing on to the next sentence. That he didn't command in the Beginning, shows he would not do so in 1Co11. It is a misinterpretation of the facts of both places to say he commands in 1Co11. If it doesn't make sense then its not likely to be truth. Adjustments should be made to a view which doesn't make full sense in view of facts. I have. I embrace the facts and the view, called the instincts view, leaving behind the uncut long view I once held.

Plz, Esaias, as the giant you are in AFF, plz explain why Paul/God would turn that which has been a long held custom of some Men in many times and places, now into a command of God at the time of the writing of 1Co11? Others are depending on you to provide a counter point which they can't provide themselves.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by 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.

Excellent research, Amanah, contrary to that shown by those who posted 97, 99, 105. Further comments of mine will follow later.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Excellent research, Amanah, contrary to that shown by those who posted 97, 99, 105. Further comments of mine will follow later.

More passive aggressive behavior.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

[


\Nay, sir. You misrepresent the question and how it was answered. See post 51, 52; points 2,3. Check your facts. You thus twist my words to say something I didn't.

Please. check YOUR facts.

You were arguing that if Paul was commanding a veil to be worn in 1 Cor 11, then there should be other places in Scripture where a veil is commanded. Since Paul was referring to the order of Creation in his argument, you said there was no evidence of any veil command given to Eve so THEREFORE 1 Cor 11 cannot be seen to contain a command to veil. You also asked where are the commands in the Law where women are commanded to veil? And so forth.

Yet you acknowledged that God need only say something ONCE for it be obligatory. And, that it may appear anywhere in Scripture. THEREFORE, you have conceded the point (whether you will admit or not is not my problem). You have conceded the point by acknowledging that God can command something once, and it is obligatory. Therefore, God can command something once in 1 Cor 11, and it is obligatory.

CASE CLOSED in regards to "where are the other examples of the veil being commanded?" By your own admission, there need not be any other veil-commands in Scripture. 1 Cor 11 is plenty.

As for your "instinct theory", that is entirely a supposition and a hypothesis on your part. The Bible does not speak of "instincts", therefore we need not rely on any "instinct" concept in our doctrine. Paul does not base his doctrine on "instincts", therefore neither do we. Paul does not require "instincts" for his doctrine, neither do we. So much for the "instinct" theory.

What else is there? What have you presented that is not just repeats and rehashing of your claims about instincts and "gee, we don't see Eve being commanded to wear a veil"?

Paul said if a woman will not be covered when praying or prophesying, then she ought to be shorn. It is uncomely and a shame for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered, and for a man to do so. And, further, we can clearly see the "covering" that is being discussed is what is commonly referred to as a veil or "headcovering".

Oh, that's right, you had another point, that since God didn't specify the make and model of headcovering, it cannot be a headcovering that is commanded. This was thoroughly refuted when I pointed out that God also commands us to sing, but says nothing about what melodies to use or how to sing, or even which songs to sing, what time to sing, how many, etc. I also pointed out the command regarding the fringe on the border of the garment, that the only specification is that it be a fringe, on the border, and contain a ribband of blue. Nothing was said about the material, the design, how big, how long, what other colors, or even whether it was to be on A garment or ALL garments, or only on 4-cornered garments, etc etc etc. There are numerous things God commands, without specifying every single detail. THEREFORE your claim about the lack of specifications for the headcovering somehow implies or requires Paul cannot be commanding a headcovering falls flat.

I don't expect you to actually acknowledge these things, and that's perfectly okay. I mostly post for whoever may be reading. You have shown that when one of your points are dealt with, you persist AS IF it hadn't even been addressed (let alone refuted). I have been here for years, unfortunately, and I have seen this behaviour time and time again.

This is why I generally do not get into actual DEBATES unless it is a FORMAL debate, with a structured format (you make your points, I refute your points, I make my points, you refute my points, we conclude, and move on to something else). Because what usually happens (as here) it just goes on endlessly with nothing new actually being added to the discussion. Besides which debates are not really for the purpose of convincing the other party, but the audience.

Either we follow Paul and do what he said, in which case we have apostolic faith and practice, or we make excuses and theories and hypotheses about why we don't have to actually do what he said to do, in which case we have heretical faith and practice. Everybody will make their own decision, and it is the Word by which we will be judged.

[Evang.Benincasa]

You think Don is going to get it?

[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.

[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.

Prove I’ve used poor hermeneutics.

[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.

I thought as much. You make accusations to everyone, accusations which have no evidence. But, you don't care. Because if you said it, then it must be true. Anyone reading this thread is totally convinced that you love to read your own posts. You need to reread what you posted to Esaias and apologize. Your ecclesiastical passive aggressive behavior is plain.