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

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

In this passage, the Apostle Paul emphasizes the importance of having a spiritual understanding of Scripture, rather than relying on human instinct or wisdom:

1 Corinthians 2:12-14
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

Jude 1:10 warns against interpreting spiritual truths based on human instinct:

Jude 1:10
But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.

1 Corinthians 2:12-14 emphasizes the importance of seeking a spiritual understanding of Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit, rather than relying on human instinct (Jude 10) or wisdom.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=donfriesen1;1618905]

4000yrs of OT history should not be ignored while 2000yrs of a.d. history are accepted, should it?

Which should carry more weight, 4000 yrs of scriptural history or 2000 yrs of Man's history? The veil view and its supporters seem to weigh the history of Man heavier, while ignoring those who have pointed out that the OT has no commands for the veil. Duh. Something awry is at work here, which needs to be fixed.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Which should carry more weight, 4000 yrs of scriptural history or 2000 yrs of Man's history? The veil view and its supporters seem to weigh the history of Man heavier, while ignoring those who have pointed out that the OT has no commands for the veil. Duh. Something awry is at work here, which needs to be fixed.

You got that right.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618884]Should there be any confusion of what an instinct is as I use it, said because the word is sometimes used other than how I mean it, I will attempt to define. Some birds have an instinct which motivates them to migrate twice a year. It is not apart of their thought processes, or a hunch but something within their nature. Humans may have a hunch which they may act on because of their thought processes but the instinct humans have are also inner motivations like the birds have, which causes all to want to behave in a certain way. Instincts are part of the nature God gives Man, and not part of thought processes. For example, the mothering instinct which women have motivates them to want a baby and also to give them proper care when they arrive.

Seriously? YOU brought up your "instinct view". It is up to YOU to prove it.

Au contraire, I have already presented my proofs. Have you seen my commentary? See post1.

Which you cannot. Because you 1. cannot find any verse in the Bible that speaks of people having an "instinct to veil or not to veil".

Many people read between the lines, yourself included. Instincts are there, though not the words themself, or as you've put it. Esaias attempts to make me contradict myself by saying things I have never said. Plz Esaias, quote the place where I say that people have instincts to veil or not to veil. Why not use your smarts to give rational explanations instead of contriving tricks like this.

2. cannot actually define "instinct" in any authoritative way, since the Bible doesn't use the term at all.

In spite of this assertion, I'd say that instincts are commonly believed by society to exist. Do you now say your views are out of sync with society, denying their knowledge that instincts exist? Does the Bible always define the words it uses or does the Lord allow language, which is an invention of Man, to define?

Besides, if Paul is teaching people to follow a God-given instinct to practice what he instructed them to practice (women being covered and men being uncovered while praying or prophesying)

For clarification in response to your statement above: Perhaps you've misunderstood the concept of instincts to be directing (teaching) the use of veils, while I believe instincts to be directing (teaching) a woman to have long hair as a covering. Your statement above is out of sync with what I've said I believe. I do see Paul asking the Co Christian woman to continue to hold to their custom of the veil, which history shows us some women in Co society were forsaking. This history is in agreement, and not disagreeing, with what is seen in 1Co11. But Paul is not asking them to do so as a command. But not only for times of church. Instinct's domains are in all times of life. Paul, in my view, also asks Co Christian men not to veil, which history also shows us was being done by some men in Co society. So, history also agreeing and not disagreeing. For a man to veil himself is in agreement with God-given instincts, when seeing men in places of shame covering themselves. Shamed men do not give glory to their God, do they? This is seen by many, many OT examples of men responding to their instincts and covering when shamed, where it is not seen done as a response to a command of God to do so. If there is no command, then they are shown to respond to instincts, not commands, when we read between the lines. Paul doesn't want Co Christian men to habitually wear veils, because veils on men are symbols of shame-events and these veiled shamed-looking men don't bring glory to God.

then YOU need to affirm your own position by acknowledging that women do indeed need to be veiled when praying or prophesying.

I would only affirm that Paul would like for Co Christian women to follow the rules of their culture. Veiling would be part of this.

Since, after all, according to you, that is a supposed "God-given instinct".

Nay sir, I do not see instincts compelling women to don veils. I do see instincts compelling a woman to want long hair as an adornment which pleases her husband, which shows her yielding to God's order of authority. Slowing down some would help when reading. I would suggest this to you, to prevent misunderstandings of what others write.

And if the "instinct" is to do the opposite of what Paul said to do, then we need to oppose said "instinct", we need to be spiritual and not natural, and obey the apostle.

That doesn't make sense. If I think that the reason Paul writes is because he has seen instincts active in life/Man's nature, then why would I say that Paul should be seen as asking to do opposite to the instinct. What God places within Man as an instinct was a spiritual act of God. Man may have a will to yield to cultural norms. This yielding to cultural customs is also being spiritual, for yielding to the uncommanded rules of society are part of what God designed for Man, when God first thought of society and human nature. It was always his desire that Man dwell within a society. Thus, it is spiritual to conform to the rules of a society because God has willed it to be so in Man's nature. Everything within a God-fearing life is spiritual, as in a life lived for God.

There are no "holes" in what Paul clearly teaches.

Paul should not be seen to be presenting holes. He's too smart for that. But interpretations of what Paul is thought to say, presents holes. If this isn't so, then all who interpret Paul would be in agreement. Because there are disagreements in interpretative views, then some must be having holes which others don't present. The veil view does. It presents a view which shows disagreement with Paul's words in v5 with Paul's words in v15. One says the veil is the cover. The other says a womans long uncut hair is given for the veil. Why hasn't your view, or you, filled this hole? Reader, this isn't the first time in this thread that this question has been presented and those who hold to the veil view, Esaias included, haven't stitched up this hole. The only way to do so, is to discard the veil view and find one without this hole. Esaias presents many good, logical evidences supporting his veil view. But not yet closing the holes, such as this and also others, seen in the veil view, because he can't. The veil view doesn't allow it. Why would such a knowledgeable God-fearer as yourself persist to hold a view with such unclosable holes? You're too smart for this. What motivates such a response? Leave the veil view behind and find a view without such holes.

A woman praying or prophesying uncovered is shameful and dishonourable, and such a woman ought to be shorn if she will not be covered.

I will agree with you on your quotes of Paul, but I won't agree with you on your conclusions. To make sense with the macroview of the Bible, Paul must not be seen as commanding, nor commanding the veil.

A man praying or prophesying while covered is also a shame and dishonourable. The reasons are rooted in the order of Creation,

Plz expand the thought that the reasons a covered shamed man finds roots in God's order of Creation. How so?

and also involve the angels (not at all having anything to do with any make believe "instincts").

The little we know of angels shows them interacting with Man's life, which would include Man's instincts.

Anybody contending for some other practice is out of step with the apostle and the churches of God.

To which I respond that anyone contending that the OT commands the veil hasn't read the OT. It is illogical to believe contrary to what Paul knows the OT doesn't show. Where are the commands (for the veil) from the OT, which OT is the base for Paul's thoughts in 1Co11. Waiting for a logical reply, Esaias. Your audience is waiting.