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

[shag]

[QUOTE=donfriesen1;1618936]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Quote:Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What is seen both microscopically and macroscopically, is only the expectation that Man would show respect for the order of God's authority using the regard of symbols. This is seen at the Beginning, through the OT, and in 1Co11. Expected but not commanded, macroscopically and microscopically.



There is nothing in post 143 which would lead to a conclusion you have made, leading readers to ask why an intelligent man such as yourself should conclude so.


Or this is a distortion of what I actually think, misrepresenting me. Some people prefer a black/white view of the world, for many reasons. The world God made is a gray world. In many things there are no clearly defined borders of right and wrong. Those 'some' who prefer a black/white world do so from being freed from the needed attention required to determine what to do in gray situations. They prefer sharply defined rules defined by others. This is a ploy used by religion to add rules when God hasn't made one. Think Pharisee about now. They thus rely on the the views of others to give them a comfort that they are doing right. What is said by the rules derived from 1Co11 offers them comfort because they are clearly defined and simple to obey, which is Esaias's word. Making rigid rules about 1Co11 is contrary to the gray the Lord would like. Looking at the Beginning, we see no rigid rules for either the symbol or even a command to keep them to show respect to God's order. At creation the Lord's method is gray, not black/white. We ought to follow the Lord's example, using it in this topic. Early Man did - in Innocence, in Conscience and in Law; particularly the long 2500 yrs of Conscience when having no Law showed God's world to be gray. 2500 years with no law! Imagine. Not until Paul is misinterpreted, do we begin to see black/white in this regard. Black/white needs to be shelved to make room for God's gray method in this regard. 1Co11 needs to be seen gray, not the black/white, as seen in the misinterpretations of both the veil view and the uncut long view. The instinct view is gray. Instincts are gray, and not sharply defined like a command.

Esaias would attempt to mislead you to believe that the instinct view does not see Man showing regard by symbols to God's order of authority. It does, but not by way of command. It comes by yielding to God-given instincts. Who installed these instincts? God. Yielding to them shows yielding to God, effectively this obeys, which is Esaias's word.

What Esaias tries here to do is distract from actually addressing this thread, because he has so little to actually say in rebuttal. Notice the repeated requests of mine to rebutt the conclusions in post 47, the vast majority which he has not bothered to counter. Should anyone like to know about what Esaias refers to in his last sentence, all they need do is ask me, and the thread will be referenced for your personal viewing. Esaias's distortions will be exposed for what they are - misrepresentations of what was actually said. Or, saving the messages to me, see the thread in the Fellowship Hall started by donfriesen1, called John3 and Romans2. Lets not get distracted/side-tracked here with what should have been discussed there. Doing this reveals Esaias's favourite trick, standing on his box, saying 'wrong, Don is wrong', but not taking the time to show how it is so. Not content to only do so for this thread, he does so with an old thread in avoidence of actually tackling the subject here. Oh, well. Why does someone of your caliber use tricks like this, Esaias, wasting our time and the resouces of AFF?

Small men slur and call names, while big men get to the business at hand. Actually show how my conclusions are wrong, by getting to the business at hand, Esaias.

Macroscopically, you could use your own original concepts when wanting to slur someone. You're certainly smart enough.

Like… “the giant of aff you are?”

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by DoesNotCompute

Holes found in the uncut long interpretation of 1Co11.2-16. What the majority of apostolics believe of 1Co11 is herein labelled: uncut long.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My commentary deals with the holes in more detail, also giving a view of 1Co11 without these holes.

Don wants me to "rebut" this post number 47 for some reason, which regards "holes found in the uncut/long view of 1 Cor 11". Yet he seems to have forgotten that I do not hold to some "uncut/long interpretation". While I agree that nature teaches that long hair on a man is a shame, but on a woman it is a glory, I do not believe that is Paul's intended subject of discourse. Rather, Paul is teaching that men ought to be uncovered and women ought to be covered when praying or prophesying. So why Don demands that I address a post that really doesn't have to do with anything *I* have stated is not clear to me. But let's humour him for a moment.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

6. See 5.

7. Nonsense. This is just Don making things up about other people's beliefs, without regard to what they actually believe. 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. Don should take some geometry classes before talking about "congruence".

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

9. Don talks a lot about "it is not logical that..." but never shows his logic. There is nothing illogical about "God exchanging a social practice with a spiritual practice", whatever that even means. 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.

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".

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! Does not compute!"

Yep, Don does not compute.

[donfriesen1]

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.

Well that version certainly speaks differently than the NKJV. It puts a different slant on it, doesn't it. But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.


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.

(My hats off to you Amanah for the astuteness you show in bringing forward these references. Awesome! Jude says that instincts, carnal nature in my opinion, destroys those who follow it. But you and I may use the word instinct differently. See below.)

God has placed the instincts, some of which are shown in Ge3.16 and others shown exercized in 2Sa15:30. (Does God see the instincts of Ge/Sa as carnal nature. I think not. Does not compute.) Do you then fault the Lord who has placed them? Do you then show that God has made a mistake and that the influence of all instincts should then be resisted? God places them for a reason. That they are a part of us helps define who Man is. To resist the instinct is to resist the one who instills them, effectively 'disobeying' the Lord. Is it wrong to have a mothering instinct? As explained by the 1Co11 instincts view, the reason Paul obliquely/hiddenly refers to instincts in 1Co11 is because doing them, yielding to them, leads to showing respect to the order of God's authority, by symbols.

Because Paul refers obliquely in 1Co11 to the instincts which he sees in Ge3.16 and 2Sa15:30, I believe he has learnt this by study, thought, and with the help of the inspration referred to in 1Co2.12-14 where it says not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit.. Paul puts together scripture and life with the Spirit's help to present thoughts for the Co to live by.

Having said that, instincts aren't the only things God has given us. Like Paul says, Ac17.27,28 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ Paul quotes this Gentile philosopher who has gained this wisdom from where? From natural sources which you seem to say are to be avoided. The natural sources here have not led to a corrupting influence the NKJV speaks of in jude10. For Paul quotes, and makes these thoughts his own thoughts thereby. We should grope for the Lord. Paul here talks not, about the forces of instincts which shape our nature as humans, but about the heart, which resides in our spirit (perhaps there, or if not, then in our soul). When Man uses another faculty God gives, the heart, it shows Man can reach out to God, which at times is wrongly described (in a technical other sense in my opinion) as reaching out instinctively. Thus, there are two different definitions of the same word - instincts. One refers to the qualities of human nature, the other to one of Man's faculties - the heart. I think you and I use the word instinct differently. I use the first, you use the second. The mothering instinct does not come from the same place in Man that 'a reaching out to the Lord from the heart', does it?

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=shag;1618938]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Like… “the giant of aff you are?”

Thanks for your comments, Shag. Nice 'permanent' comments at your post bottom. Welcome to the thread.

I prefer not ever to sling mud, but at times am seemingly forced to.

I have no, none, nada illusions of being a giant in life or on AFF, except when tempted by the devil to think so. This doesn't prevent my defending scriptural views, nor exposing views which are unscriptural. Hope to see more comments from you.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I’m not trying to disrupt the flow of debate, Said jokingly: but plz do anyway and disrupt the monotony but your (Don’s) comment about women trying to diss men by cutting off their hair brings to mind a video I saw that had what evidently was a liberal woman who was having a meltdown over men voting for Trump. Evidently she didn’t approve. So she was ranting about men and misogyny and so forth.

And she was doing something else as well. She was cutting her own hair off while she was absolutely melting down and obviously being angry at all who dared identify as “men”. I knew she was very upset with men.

But why was she cutting her hair? And in such a crude and ugly fashion?

Because it was part of the package. It’s called the 4b movement. The women are vowing to basically not have relationships with men for four years. Cutting their hair is as you said. To diss men.

Interesting.

Interesting.

Very interesting indeed. And very applicable and pertinent to the discussion. This woman, God bless her soul and have mercy on her, acted contrary to her instincts. Thx

[shag]

[QUOTE=donfriesen1;1618941]

Originally Posted by shag

Thanks for your comments, Shag. Nice 'permanent' comments at your post bottom. Welcome to the thread.

I prefer not ever to sling mud, but at times am seemingly forced to.

I have no, none, nada illusions of being a giant in life or on AFF, except when tempted by the devil to think so. This doesn't prevent my defending scriptural views, nor exposing views which are unscriptural. Hope to see more comments from you.

Don, I am reading what has been said and don’t have much to bring to the table, I’m here to mostly learn.
My point was a few pages back you took a shot referring (uncomplimentary) to Esias as the giant of AFF. While now commenting about being a man by not stooping to names or whatever exactly you said

But carry-on…

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Me over here with uncut hair for over a year under very *interesting* circumstances that may or may not have had something to do with a vow that may or may not have came upon me and with much weeping and travail I heard the words come from my lips....


And the words were "For the shame upon this nation"....


This occured Oct 17th of last year....


Heres the thing folks....Paul took a vow and the only place we find mention of such a vow proscribed is in Numbers I believe and it lays out the provisions for the Nazarite Vow.


Those that took that vow were under the same level of ceremonial purity as the High Priest and there were two versions of the vow...


Lifetime *Samuel, Sampson, Absolom*dont @ me...that man was a Nazarite and I have good reason to believe that his tragic action was under the influece of the Lord as a Judgement against the house of David but I could be wrong...also his yearly cutting of his hair tracks with the provision for a lifetime Nazarite to cut their during certain times if it became too heavy...this was allowed for lifetime Nazarites...his yearly offering of the hair is the evidence I propose.


This flies in the face of the idea out of hand that "Long hair on a man is a sign of rebellion"


Its a sign of Holy Consecration....


Paul not only completed his vow which means he had a lifetime vow I would hazard to guess that he took upon himself soon after his conversion...the trip to Jerusalem was to end that vow he took for either a temporary time*which was allowed... the minimum period was one month*


Or it was permanent...and he was acting under that provision and he also took others with him on that trip and financed their vow offering as well because it wasnt just the hair burned...but there was an offering given as well.


Did not Paul say,"It is a shame for a man to have long hair?"


Shame was one of the reasons the vow was taken...it was akin to sackcloth and ashes...consecration...repentence...set apart.


So yeah...long hair dont care...and its nearly completely white....

and there were two versions of the vow...

If you would, Jediwill83, plz show your sources for this info.

also his yearly cutting of his hair tracks with the provision for a lifetime Nazarite to cut their during certain times

Biblical sources for this thought plz.

this was allowed for lifetime Nazarites...his yearly offering of the hair is the evidence I propose.

This is the first I've ever heard that Absalom was a Nazirite. I'm listening for more.

This flies in the face of the idea out of hand that "Long hair on a man is a sign of rebellion" Its a sign of Holy Consecration....

I think I get it now. You're saying that Absalom was a Nazirite, saying so only because he had long hair. Got it.

Paul not only completed his vow which means he had a lifetime vow I would hazard to guess that he took upon himself soon after his conversion...the trip to Jerusalem was to end that vow he took for either a temporary time*which was allowed... the minimum period was one month*

This is also the first I've ever heard that Paul was a Nazirite. Still listening. Say more for evidence.

Did not Paul say,"It is a shame for a man to have long hair?"

Yes, or something similar.

Shame was one of the reasons the vow was taken...

You now make it sound like the reason the Nazirite vow was for reasons of self-abasement. Is this what you mean?

it was akin to sackcloth and ashes...consecration...repentence...set apart.

My opinion is these show a humbling before God and others, which is akin to abasement but different. Abasement reminds me of penance, and I doubt you mean that.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

S

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 Esaias

I don't even understand how his posts and quotes end up the way they do? If you just hit "quote" on a post, you get the other person's quote in a box and you can then type after the quote. If you want to break the quote up into separate blocks you just insert "/quote" at the end, and "quote"the other person's text"/quote" at each section. I mean, this isn't rocket science. I can't even figure out how Don posts and quotes the way he does. It's like it would have to be intentionally garbled just to make it difficult?

As someone who has gone to great lengths to write a commentary, i should not be seen to be doing things so I'm purposely misunderstood. The commentary speaks against this thought. The web designer has allowed various ways of responding. Don does not refuse to learn. That I choose one of many designed ways shouldn't make me be seen as a scally wag, doing so to be difficult. But, as is usually thought by humans, we think the negative thoughts of others first. That I've begged for critical review of the commentary also speaks against the thought that I garble purposely.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Quote: Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post

See post 137, second para, where Esaias says "I never suggested that 1 Cor 11 is a command for anybody BUT the new covenant church of God." where it appears you say this very thing. This is saying to me, 'a command for anybody BUT ONLY the new covenant church of God'. Perhaps you would now want to reword it in a way that doesn't suggest you believe it to be so, leading to misunderstandings.

Please note that Don said misunderstandings and not misleading.

1) I asked chatgpt the following about about Esaias's statement: What does this mean: "I never suggested that 1 Cor 11 is a command for anybody BUT the new covenant church of God."

Its unbiased answer: The statement "I never suggested that 1 Cor 11 is a command for anybody BUT the new covenant church of God" means that the speaker is clarifying or emphasizing that their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 applies specifically to the "new covenant church of God" and not to others outside of this group.

2) I asked Meta Ai the following about about Esaias's statement: What does this mean: "I never suggested that 1 Cor 11 is a command for anybody BUT the new covenant church of God."

Its unbiased answer: This statement means that the speaker believes 1 Corinthians 11 (a chapter from the Bible) contains a command, but this command is specifically intended for the "new covenant church of God".

My English skills are in line with the skills of others, bringing into question your skills. When have you last had a check-up? You've been put on notice. Readers, be aware of Esaias's answers, for he says things he does not mean and will accuse you wrongly if you call him out on it.

We are confused by Esaias's two different responses. We politely ask for clarification so we will know what it is that Esaias believes. Do you believe that Paul only commands for the NT people?