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

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Can you explain what you meant when you said this:

"If any don't want to walk according to this, then don't make a big fuss over their refusal, because as a custom it is not a command. Neither the churches, nor we, teach this custom as a command for all to hold."

???

I believe Paul knows of and speaks of, in 1Co11, responses to human instincts. Covering and uncovering, in the woman and man respectively, are proper responses to these instincts, which responses may develope into societal customs/practises. (Some also add the veil, but not as coming from an instinct.) If anyone chooses to ignore their instinct and act contrary to it or a custom of it, they are only acting contrary to it and not to a command of God. The only Bible Paul held in his hand, the OT, didn't command co/unco and Jesus himself hadn't spoken of any such command for the church. Even so, it was seen practised by many nations as a custom. Because a response to an instinct isn't a response to a command of God it then doesn't matter whether it is strictly followed or not, even while acting contrary to the God-given instinct. It is therefore not now a command for the church, unless Paul is somehow seen as commanding now, introducing as command which is based on instinct. It can't be based on the OT which doesn't command it. Paul/God, in my view, should be seen as encouraging the Co/everyone to follow their God-given instincts, to co/unco. But if any don't for whatever reason, then don't make a fuss over their lack of compliance. It is only a proper response to a instinct, not to a command of God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I believe Paul knows of and speaks of, in 1Co11, responses to human instincts. Covering and uncovering, in the woman and man respectively, are proper responses to these instincts, which responses may develope into societal customs/practises. (Some also add the veil, but not as coming from an instinct.) If anyone chooses to ignore their instinct and act contrary to it or a custom of it, they are only acting contrary to it and not to a command of God. The only Bible Paul held in his hand, the OT, didn't command co/unco and Jesus himself hadn't spoken of any such command for the church. Even so, it was seen practised by many nations as a custom. Because a response to an instinct isn't a response to a command of God it then doesn't matter whether it is strictly followed or not, even while acting contrary to the God-given instinct. It is therefore not now a command for the church, unless Paul is somehow seen as commanding now, introducing as command which is based on instinct. It can't be based on the OT which doesn't command it. Paul/God, in my view, should be seen as encouraging the Co/everyone to follow their God-given instincts, to co/unco. But if any don't for whatever reason, then don't make a fuss over their lack of compliance. It is only a proper response to a instinct, not to a command of God.

So, you understand Paul to be saying essentially "if any contend against what I have just taught, don't worry about it because neither we nor the churches of God command what I just taught"?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So, you understand Paul to be saying essentially "if any contend against what I have just taught, don't worry about it because neither we nor the churches of God command what I just taught"?

Yes,
1. Because the original source of what he writes of can be seen coming from the instincts of Man. Instincts shouldn't be seen as commands.
2. Because the original source isn't seen coming from the OT - not commanded there. If not commanded there, why would it be commanded in the NT?
3. Because the way he has written isn't in a commanding style. He could be seen as sharing what he observes in societies/Man.
4. Because the words he uses aren't necessarily commanding words.
5. Because he loves the OT he then mirrors what he sees. The Beginning doesn't show respect for God's order by a command.
6. Because the NT foundation-makers, Jesus or the 12, never commanded it. No other NT writer says boo about the co/unco topic.
7. Because it was already seen practised by many nations but not by command of God known to them. It may have been by instincts.
8. Because he says co/unco was a custom, v16. Customs are only mutually-agreed-upon practices of Man. They originate from Man and not commands.
9. Because he writes to those in Co who are Greeks, Romans, Jews; on a subject they are all familiar with as a custom. (Said by presumption without holding evidence thereto) If what Paul writes of is seen in all of them by custom, co/unco may have come to their separate nations by mutually held human instincts. We know that the co/unco practise was not known to the Jew from OT scripture because it is not seen there by command. It is logical to see widely held similar practices originating in instincts and most definitely not by OT commands which aren't there. The source then may be instincts. Why would extremely worldly knowledgeable Paul then command for Christians that which he has seen in many nations as sourced from instincts. Does not compute.

v16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. If Paul commands it would be illogical for him to then say 'do not contend for what I have just taught'. What he says about the contentious shows that what he says is not a command. He would definitely say to contend for a command or for a tradition that was based on a command. He also wouldn't call it a custom, which are based on peoples likes, if he believed it to be a command or any tradition based on commands. It is logical to see him say 'if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom' if believed what he writes is sourced on something other than a command, such as an instinct or man-made custom. If so, it might then be ok to contend about it.

Paul would like any to follow God-given instincts because it exemplifies respect for the creator of the instinct and also the order of authority thereby, but not as by command. Is God ever seen giving Man instincts as commands? They can be said to be suggestions as to how Man should be. God provides free-will even in instincts. But not in given commands. What is known about instincts can not be said to be commands of God.

If co/unco is a command then it should be clearly seen so. It isn't. 1Co11 is written unclear as a command, shown so by its many interpretations. God then has failed to be clear about a command, if it is a command. He should be said to have abilities which give clear commands, to give him glory thereby. An instincts view fits what is seen and may be the explanation of an unclear passage, which should be held by all just because it is seen as fitting. It provides clarity to what is seen for at least one man, this writer. But the writer's words haven't been examined by many experienced in critical review, seen acceptable by many experienced that a view of 1Co11 should be instinctual. Perhaps these reviews will come through AFF to form a consensus of it being a good quality view, suitable for all to hold as sound doctrine, which uncut long fails to do.

When we see where Paul is launching his thoughts from, it helps decipher what he says. I hope I have clearly shown that Paul's source is not revelation, nor the OT but is from God-given instinctive qualities of Man's nature.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Yes,

Ok, I just wanted to be clear about what you are saying.

1. Because the original source of what he writes of can be seen coming from the instincts of Man. Instincts shouldn't be seen as commands.
2. Because the original source isn't seen coming from the OT - not commanded there. If not commanded there, why would it be commanded in the NT?
3. Because the way he has written isn't in a commanding style. He could be seen as sharing what he observes in societies/Man.
4. Because the words he uses aren't necessarily commanding words.
5. Because he loves the OT he then mirrors what he sees. The Beginning doesn't show respect for God's order by a command.
6. Because the NT foundation-makers, Jesus or the 12, never commanded it. No other NT writer says boo about the co/unco topic.
7. Because it was already seen practised by many nations but not by command of God known to them. It may have been by instincts.
8. Because he says co/unco was a custom, v16. Customs are only mutually-agreed-upon practices of Man. They originate from Man and not commands.
9. Because he writes to those in Co who are Greeks, Romans, Jews; on a subject they are all familiar with as a custom. (Said by presumption without holding evidence thereto) If what Paul writes of is seen in all of them by custom, co/unco may have come to their separate nations by mutually held human instincts. We know that the co/unco practise was not known to the Jew from OT scripture because it is not seen there by command. It is logical to see widely held similar practices originating in instincts and most definitely not by OT commands which aren't there. The source then may be instincts. Why would extremely worldly knowledgeable Paul then command for Christians that which he has seen in many nations as sourced from instincts. Does not compute.

Paul establishes that what is being discussed are the "traditions received" by the church from the apostles. He provides correction regarding the Corinthians' practice, to bring them into conformity with the apostolic traditions concerning head covering, the Lord's Supper, and the conduct of people during the meeting.

In regards to the head covering issue, he establishes as apostolic doctrine that every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonours his spiritual head, Christ. And that women praying or prophesying having their heads uncovered are doing something that is shameful and dishonourable.

He then establishes the reasons why the man should be uncovered and why the woman should be covered. Those reasons are:

1. The man is the image and glory of God, the woman is the glory of the man.
2. The man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man.
3. The man was not made for the woman, but the woman was made for the man.
4. The woman ought to be covered because of the angels.

None of those reasons are cultural, or "instinctual", but are based entirely upon the hierarchical order of creation and God's government.

In addition to these stated reasons, he tells the Corinthians they can figure this out for themselves by simply looking to "nature". According to "nature", long flowing hair on a man is a shame, but it is a glory to a woman, illustrating the the concept of man = uncovered, woman = covered, which verifies or witnesses to the truth of his apostolic teaching.

He concludes by saying:

1 Corinthians 11:16 KJV
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Who would be contentious? About what would they be contentious? To be contentious means to argue against or oppose something, to "contend" or fight against something. So who would be contentious, and against what are they contending? The obvious answer is "the people who oppose Paul's teaching, and they are contending against his teaching". That is, the contentious ones are contending against the doctrine that men are to pray and prophesy with uncovered head and women are to pray and prophesy with covered head.

In response to the contentious ones, he says "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." What custom? Obviously, the custom the contentious ones are contending FOR, in opposition to the tradition Paul is teaching. That is, neither Paul and his ministry team, nor any of the churches of God, have the custom of men praying and prophesying with covered heads and women with uncovered heads.

To suggest that Paul is saying "we have no such custom as the tradition I just got done telling you to practice" makes absolutely ZERO sense. You acknowledge this when you say:

If Paul commands it would be illogical for him to then say 'do not contend for what I have just taught'.

You then jump the ship of reason and fall overboard when you say this immediately following:

What he says about the contentious shows that what he says is not a command.

No, for him to tell the contentious ones "we have no such custom" shows that whatever the contentious ones are contending for, they are contending for something the churches of God do NOT practice. And since he just got done spending half a chapter instructing a church to DO (practice) a certain thing, it is clear that the "custom" of the contentious ones must be opposite to that which he just got done teaching, and it is also clear that what he just got done teaching is in fact the custom (actually,"tradition", the practice) of the churches of God. Which means anyone not doing what he taught to do is practicing something other than what God's churches practice, they are out of step with God's people, they are not conformed to the practices of the Congregation of the Lord.

[diakonos]

Great breakdown, E.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618447]
PART1

1.

Paul establishes that what is being discussed are the "traditions received" by the church from the apostles.

'From the Apostles' you say? What Biblical evidence could you present to prove this assertion beyond referring only to 1Co11? As such it is only an assumption. 'Traditions received' you say? If these traditions you speak of were received from the 12 apostles, they had received them from the Lord Jesus. But we have no Biblical record of Jesus, or the 12, speaking on the subject of co/unco. If I'm mistaken about this then plz quote the references. If the 'traditions received' refers to traditions coming out of the OT, then quote the OT scriptural commands which would provide a starting point for an OT religious tradition. You will not be able to do so. If instead you speak of a custom coming from the 12 or the OT times, then I agree that there is a possibility that this is so. Traditions come from commands of God and customs comes from the likes of people, in my opinion/definition.

2.

He provides correction regarding the Corinthians' practice, to bring them into conformity with the apostolic traditions concerning head covering, the Lord's Supper, and the conduct of people during the meeting.

It must first be Biblically established as a co/unco tradition or not, before it is correctly said that Paul corrects them. The horse before the cart.

3.

In regards to the head covering issue, he establishes as apostolic doctrine that every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonours his spiritual head, Christ.

It's safe for any to say it in the way you just did, because it basically is a repetition of the scripture words. What it fails to do is explain without dispute what Paul refers to. People continue to look for an explanation which best shows what he means without having contradictions of fact or reason. Your opinions have been presented without showing evidence for support. I had hoped to see more from one who has the vast experience and knowledge shown here in AFF posts. Opinions are a dime a dozen and almost worthless when provided without evidence to support. Nor have you taken the time to show the error of my opinions, if you think them wrong. I fault no one for not doing so because it would involve a lot of time, but would welcome anyone doing so, not yet having been done.

4.

And that women praying or prophesying having their heads uncovered are doing something that is shameful and dishonourable.

Also safe to say it that way, as just repeating what the Bible says without expounding on it for clarification. What wasn't established without dispute is whether the shame and dishonour comes from some lack of keeping a command, or whether failing to line-up to social expectations. I conclude it to be failing to meet social expectations. You've not shown why you think my conclusion is in error, not shown contrary evidence/reasoning. Paul specifies prayer and prophesy times but doing so doesn't limit that the times of shame/dishonour are only in these times. Its most logical, when the glory of God is considered, that shame/dishonour could be year round, not just these certain times.

5.

He then establishes the reasons why the man should be uncovered and why the woman should be covered. Those reasons are:
1. The man is the image and glory of God, the woman is the glory of the man.
2. The man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man.
3. The man was not made for the woman, but the woman was made for the man.
4. The woman ought to be covered because of the angels.
None of those reasons are cultural, or "instinctual", but are based entirely upon the hierarchical order of creation and God's government.

Yet, a man's and woman's interactions are not only on a spiritual God-level but are mostly on a social level. Men/women must maintain God's order on a social level. When on social levels they then may also be cultural interactions. And then to say that instincts aren't referenced is to say that instincts aren't ever seen expressed on a social or cultural level. What would be said about God if they say God ignores the expressions of instincts humans show in life? It would show God ignoring that which he had himself installed in Man. Why then show instincts in Ge3.16? God thrives on paying attention to details (hairs on our head, jot and tittle) and must be seen as also referencing in some way the instincts he placed in Man. Who wouldn't believe this to be true? God's expectations of Man must then also coincide with social and cultural life influenced by instincts or God ignores what he himself has placed in Man.

What is said about God's hierarchical order is clearly referenced by Paul as referring to what had happened at the Beginning. All should hold to this hierarchical order as truth. Paul has not seen a command in the Beginning for a respect for God's order, because there is none shown there. He has deduced this respect-for-God's-order conclusion just from the facts seen there. Respect for God's order of authority had not been commanded by God and this need to respect it comes to Paul by logical reasonings from what happened. But this doesn't make it less real or less unnecessary for all to do. It is apparent to all that it needs to be done - deduced by all without command. It is a universal principle not based on a command but events. God never commanded the respect in the Beginning, nor should it be said that he commands it elsewhere unless he clearly has. To say now that Paul commands all to show respect for God order of authority, just because he makes reference to it, is saying more about it than the text indicates in v3. If God expected respect in the Beginning without command, then who would we be to now command that which he hadn't then. Does God need unasked-for human help in this matter? He apparently has enough wisdom to do such things the way he sees fit without help. God today expects respect for the order of authority with the keeping of symbols but not by command.

6.

In addition to these stated reasons, he tells the Corinthians they can figure this out for themselves by simply looking to "nature".

Why do you say that God will leave it to Man to figure out? God will usually by command figure it out for Man to do, if he wants all to do it in a certain way. What you have said here without realising it is, that Man should be able to figure it out from what is in them when it isn't figured out previously by command. Thus you end up saying that which I say comes from within themselves - instincts. Thank you for agreeing with me and making my point. God never commanded co/unco anywhere in the OT. Quote the command if I am mistaken to say this. He expected Man to figure it out.

7.

According to "nature", long flowing hair on a man is a shame, but it is a glory to a woman, illustrating the the concept of man = uncovered, woman = covered, which verifies or witnesses to the truth of his apostolic teaching.

1. You haven't clearly defined what you believe 'nature' to be. 2. It just as easy for a woman to cut her hair as a man. It is just as easy for a man to have long hair as for a woman (outside of social pressures which come from where? Human nature? Which comes from where? Instincts?). Why then don't they? Most don't because it is in their nature by instincts not to. I showed in my commentary, quite clearly I think, that when Paul talks about 'nature' that he refers to the way things are normally done, which could be said to be by following instincts. If co/unco was done by OT Jews it was done so by instincts alone, because there was no OT command for it. Paul's values have come largely from the OT scriptures. Plz quote the command from the only Book Paul loves that would lead him to believe that it would be 'nature' which shows co/unco to be based on scripture vs instincts.

[For those who haven't read the commentary, the following is said to clarify what I say about instincts. Ge3.16 says that women will have an instinct which will try to plz her man. Among her efforts is having long hair. Ge3.16 shows man has an instinct for rulership. He also instinctively likes nice looking things, which long hair on a woman satisfies. Any woman dissing her long hair disses her man's likes and rulership. She is out of order, by God's given instincts, to do so.
Man, men and women both, have an instinct calling them to cover when shamed or embarrassed. Perhaps more so for a man, who has higher needs for the respect of others. As shamed, a man does not glorify his Creator. He is out of order when not showing God glory, because it is his primary reason for being. The embarrassment-covering symbolizes a lack of giving glory. This is what I believe Paul refers to, in the man's cover in 1Co11. It comes by instincts. See the commentary for many scriptural examples of this.]

...continued on Part2.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618447]
Part2

8.

He concludes by saying:
1 Corinthians 11:16 KJV
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Who would be contentious? About what would they be contentious? To be contentious means to argue against or oppose something, to "contend" or fight against something. So who would be contentious, and against what are they contending? The obvious answer is "the people who oppose Paul's teaching, and they are contending against his teaching".

Perhaps so, because you've used good logic. Or rather, he could instead mean they are contentious about the way things are normally done in their society, which have developed from God-given instincts. Is this not also good logic? Which logic agrees more with what is seen in the OT scriptures which Paul loves and bases his thoughts and life on? Reader decide. Where does the evidence lead? Would it be permissible to state something which would lead any to believe in my conclusions/logic? If Paul reads the OT and sees no commands there for co/unco, does he conclude that God has commanded it, starting a co/unco tradition? No. If he sees no commands for it, yet sees the Jew practicing co/unco, what might he conclude as to its source? If Paul knows of the instincts referred to by Ge3.16 he may then conclude that which he sees, not only in the Jew's nation but also seen in many others, he might logically conclude that which is expressed in many nations comes from instincts. God-given instincts. It didn't come to many pagan nations by command of God. Why say that co/unco is seen in many pagan nations? Because researchers have said so and it is commonly believed, that most men over all time had short hair and most women had long hair.

It is historically accurate to say that the Gk women had a custom of long hair and also wore a veil. It is also historically accurate to say that some in Co were in the throws of a cultural revolution against their norms. It is the back-drop to what is said by Paul and perhaps also the reason why Paul writes. This is not Biblical evidence, yet still an example of showing that history helps unfold what the Bible unclearly says.

9.

That is, the contentious ones are contending against the doctrine that men are to pray and prophesy with uncovered head and women are to pray and prophesy with covered head.

To say these are contending against an existing doctrine, known by all previous to Paul's 1Co11 writing, must only assume that a doctrine has been taught previously. We have no Biblical evidence of this doctrine from before Paul's 1Co11 words, which was penned c.55-60 ad. And it is seen till now, that his 1Co11 words are unclear enough to provide a doctrine which all can agree on. Paul may be referring to expected contentions from some in the Co church who act contrary to that which he has purposely expressed by the word custom, to be those customs which those in Co lived by. People, not God, have created a custom, and I would think to say that some customs come out of people's instincts. If not human nature then where do customs originate from?

10.

In response to the contentious ones, he says "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." What custom? Obviously, the custom the contentious ones are contending FOR, in opposition to the tradition Paul is teaching. That is, neither Paul and his ministry team, nor any of the churches of God, have the custom of men praying and prophesying with covered heads and women with uncovered heads.

You've well said what you said. I'll say that I don't agree though, seen from comments I've previously made about 'customs' and 'traditions'. What I will further say about your custom-of-contention view, is that customs usually take a longer period of time to form. To say the contentions of a minority few in the Co congregation have quickly formed into a custom may be straining against the understanding of how long a custom is usually thought to take to form.

11.

To suggest that Paul is saying "we have no such custom as the tradition I just got done telling you to practice" makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You have assumed it is as a tradition. I have not. Plz provide some Biblical evidence of a co/unco tradition beyond just stating an opinion that it was. That many people believe it to be so is also not evidence, though having some weight. Had co/unco been commanded in the OT, then it could have developed into a religious tradition which carried over into the NT. Where are the OT commands for co/unco? References plz. Do you agree that OT religious traditions are based on a command of God? If not based on commands then they are just human practices - which I define as customs. An example of a Christian religious tradition is Communion, which was commanded by Jesus. An OT tradition was Passover. An example of a custom is the Christmas tree.

12.

You acknowledge this when you say:

Quote:
If Paul commands it would be illogical for him to then say 'do not contend for what I have just taught'.
You then jump the ship of reason and fall overboard when you say this immediately following:

Thank you for saying this in a way which doesn't reflect on my character, focussing on the thought instead!

13.

Quote:
What he says about the contentious shows that what he says is not a command.
No, for him to tell the contentious ones "we have no such custom" shows that whatever the contentious ones are contending for, they are contending for something the churches of God do NOT practice. And since he just got done spending half a chapter instructing a church to DO (practice) a certain thing, it is clear that the "custom" of the contentious ones must be opposite to that which he just got done teaching, and it is also clear that what he just got done teaching is in fact the custom (actually,"tradition", the practice) of the churches of God. Which means anyone not doing what he taught to do is practicing something other than what God's churches practice, they are out of step with God's people, they are not conformed to the practices of the Congregation of the Lord.

Plz bear with my definitions of 'tradition' and 'custom'. I realize there is a fine line between the definitions, and that the words are often used interchangeably. I believe that a distinction between them is important to the discussion. I prefer defining customs as coming from people and religious traditions from commands. Am I wrong on this? Paul refers to traditions in v3. He here in v16 refers to customs. He can be seen to do so for a purpose, wanting to make a distinction. Perhaps a look at the Gk lexicon may help.

That said, contentiousness is an attitude, not a custom. As explained in my commentary, contentions aren't usually referred to as customs. Customs and traditions are usually seen practised by the majority of a society, practiced over longer periods of time before being called customs or traditions. Are the contentious usually majority practioners? No. Are contentions usually thought to be customs that a majority hold? No. They are not then contentions.

14. On another note. Do you have an explanation as to why the OT has no commands for co/unco similar to that which is believed to be commanded in the NT? And/or: Plz explain how the pagan Gk have a word in their language which describes what is said by some to be a command of God - komao - long uncut hair.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

From the Apostles' you say? What Biblical evidence could you present to prove this assertion beyond referring only to 1Co11? As such it is only an assumption. 'Traditions received' you say? If these traditions you speak of were received from the 12 apostles, they had received them from the Lord Jesus. But we have no Biblical record of Jesus, or the 12, speaking on the subject of co/unco.

1 Corinthians 11:2 KJV
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

The word translated "ordinances" means "traditions". The apostolic church in Corinth had received traditions, "ordinances", that were delivered to them by the apostle. The NT is pretty clear that there was a uniformity of faith and practice among the churches, Paul didn't teach anything the other apostles didn't teach, and vice versa.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 KJV
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Again, traditions delivered to the church of Thessalonia by Paul, either by his speaking or by his writing.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 KJV
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

There it is again, traditions delivered to the church by the apostle. The apostles were sent by Christ to establish the church, therefore their teachings in faith and practice are to be followed by apostolic congregations.

Matthew 28:18-20 KJV
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. [19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The apostles taught the churches everything that Jesus had commanded them. Which would include this stuff:

Acts 1:2-3 KJV
Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: [3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

2 Peter 3:1-2 KJV
This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: [2] That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

To suggest that you would not accept as obligatory any teaching or instruction of an apostle UNLESS you could find it written in one of the Gospels as the words of Jesus is known as the "Red Letter Only Error". The problem is, not everything Jesus stated is written in the Gospels:

John 21:25 KJV
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

The apostles were authorised to teach. That is what they did. Their teaching was unified, because Jesus didn't establish 12 different religions, one for each apostle, but ONE FAITH. Therefore, the apostles taught the same thing, the same doctrine, they were on the same page, and all Christians were expected to be on that same page as well.

I believe that since this incredibly simple and obvious error is where you started from, the rest is not really germaine to the discussion. Until a person understands that when an apostle teaches Christians ought to do some thing in some way then Christians are in fact to do that thing in that way, then there really isn't much point going further. You can do and believe whatever you want, but as for ME I am "apostolic", meaning my faith and practice is determined by the teaching and example of the apostles. THEY are authoritative for me, because it is only through the apostles that any of us even know Jesus existed, much less what He taught. Their doctrine is His doctrine, I believe on Jesus through the word (teaching) of His apostles.

If we aren't in agreement about that, which it seems we clearly are not, then there is no point debating "what" the apostles taught.

[Amanah]

Awesome teaching Elder Esaias.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618489] Part 1 of 2

I believe that since this incredibly simple and obvious error is where you started from, the rest is not really germaine to the discussion. Until a person understands that when an apostle teaches Christians ought to do some thing in some way then Christians are in fact to do that thing in that way, then there really isn't much point going further. You can do and believe whatever you want, but as for ME I am "apostolic", meaning my faith and practice is determined by the teaching and example of the apostles. THEY are authoritative for me, because it is only through the apostles that any of us even know Jesus existed, much less what He taught. Their doctrine is His doctrine, I believe on Jesus through the word (teaching) of His apostles.

Amen. We certainly are in agreement that the Apostles taught authoritively that which all Christians should follow. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. Nothing I say shows otherwise. But why a sudden heavy tone from you? See Ro14 where Paul tells all to be firmly persuaded in their own minds about things, though not agreeing on it with others. You seem to imply that what is believed must be by your interpretation of things, what you perceive the Apostles to say, to the exclusion of any other, on a passage,1Co11, which is unclear to many. Paul shows a different approach to differences of opinion in Ro14. Will you not conform to Paul's Ro14 teaching to be Apostolic in thought in this regard? See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e..._81tZcYKNy/pub

If we aren't in agreement about that, which it seems we clearly are not, then there is no point debating "what" the apostles taught.

If you'd rather not get into 1Co11 discussions then no excuses are needed. You are indebted to no one as far as a discussion is concerned.

I trust that I am as Apostolic as any other Apostolic, because it is the new birth which has made me so, and dare I say nothing else can? Yes, entering into Christ by the new birth alone is what makes me a completed Apostolic, with or without belief in co/unco. I agree that all today who are born-again are so because the Lord Jesus commissioned the Apostles to continue the work he had started, using them to lay the foundational doctrines of the church for anytime following. Most would agree with this, yet not all Apostolics agree as to what is written in 1Co11, which disagreement you are aware of. If all those born again do not agree on 1Co11, does it then question which of these co/unco views are Apostolic and which are not, when it is genuine Apostolics who hold them? Don't all use the Bible for proof texts of their views? I trust that when you say that Apostolics must follow the Apostles teachings that you do not insinuate that those who don't agree on 1Co11 aren't all truly Apostolic though born again. Obviously, the view which God holds is the true one to hold and all others are misinterpretations of the evidence. Yet Holy Ghost filled, Jesus name loving Apostolics don't agree on co/unco. A Ro14 understanding should be applied.

I agree whole-heartedly about the red-letter error. While agreeing, it is still an extremely relevant observation to see that Jesus and the 12 don't talk about co/unco, and we have missing words. That they are missing carries weight. All know that which isn't spoken often has as much weight as what was spoken. There are sometimes strong reasons why things are purposely left out. Hence the court oath when witnesses are sworn in. The oath wouldn't be worded that way unless it was weighty. The absence of Jesus/12 words on the topic carries weight of proof.

You've used a lot of ink showing that the Apostles had uniformity of doctrine. While this isn't totalling irrelevant to our discussion I question why no evidence was presented about the topic - your assertion that co/unco was an Apostolic tradition. You've given a wonderful lesson on uniformity but none of it gives detailed support for the idea that co/unco was held by all. It is only broad, not detailed support.

Perhaps the following will help you re-consider what you say would prevent going forward, when nothing should prevent it in my opinion.

Well yes, certainly there were traditions of the Apostles. Of course. Who would deny this but a fool? But saying they all teach the same thing is a far cry from showing what exactly it was that they all taught. While not arguing that they didn't teach the same things, any just saying that they did haven't provided detailed evidence of what it was that all taught. Perhaps it is He6 which provides a definition for this 'same thing' which all believed. You've again made an assertion and again don't provide incontrovertible Biblical evidence to support that it is true, when you imply that everyone of the Apostles believed as Paul did about co/unco. What you have said is rational and logical but is assumption. Have you said that all Apostles and Prophets equally taught co/unco as a doctrine? It appears to be so. Yet even you as an Apostolic don't believe what the majority of Apostolics today teach about co/unco. Aren't you then contentious, when you don't follow the majority? Why should anyone listen to your words, or mine, as we both are seen as contentious. You stand on the Bible, don't you, as I also do. Doing so should make our view worthy of examination.

continued in Part 2.