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

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618489] Part 2 of 2

You say:

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.

Paul is known to say till we all come to the unity of the faith. This is an obvious indication that there wasn't consensus on every point believed, which you and I show by our example continues to this day. Inspite of this they believed in One Lord, One faith, One baptism. As you and I also do. Not having uniformity of belief on co/unco doesn't make anyone unapostolic.

Quoting Jn21.25 proves nothing. It speaks of the Lords actions and doesn't mention his teachings. It seems to me that you insinuate that the Apostles received things from Jesus which others aren't privy to. What happened to his admonition to shout what they have heard in secret from the roof tops?

But explain this about what Paul has said about traditions in v3. It is the following which may lead us to be able to carry on, changing your mind. If you say he had previously taught the Co and established a doctrine which had become a known tradition to them, which some are contending against, then why re-teach what has already been previously established as a tradition? It doesn't make sense to do so with something that you say is an established known tradition. Those who contend would be clearly rebelling against this tradition. Those who walk disorderly are commanded elsewhere by Paul to be avoided. Most Pastors are well able to address established doctrinal traditions issues in the congregation. Does Co not have a Pastor that necessitates an itinerant Apostle to address established tradition issues? Thus, does he knowingly waste his time with these rebels, who he says elsewhere should be avoided, ignoring his own teaching about avoiding those who are disorderly? The disoderly are to be avoided and those who conform to tradition need no re-teaching.

Rather this: Paul, in v2 is praising them for the traditions he knows they are keeping without detailing what they are, and there is something else he now wants them to know which they previously hadn't known. If He6 is to be the list of known doctrines/traditions which all NT preachers adhere to, it hasn't included co/unco. When he says But I want you to know it is implied that they haven't previously known what he will now teach. But is a word used to contrast. He contrasts what they show by obedience they know, traditions, with what they don't yet know. I know that you keep the traditions which I've previously told you of and now I want you to know that which I haven't yet taught on. Paul then teaches a new thing which he wants the Co to be aware of. Remember this: because co/unco wasn't commanded in the OT it never became an OT tradition, though held to as a custom. Proof this wrong and then we'll have something else to talk about.

Picture this potentially realistic hypothetical scenario: Paul either hears of, or is acquainted with by a visit, the cultural revolution taking place in Co citizens and knows of its effect on the church. He then leaves, if present in Co. He makes it a matter of prayer so he may be able to provide protection from its effects on a church he has started. God reveals to him what he now teaches as a new teaching for their protection in answer to his prayer. It is a new thing to him and them, which the absence of Jesus/the 12-mentions testifies to. Where else does the Bible refer to the order of authority but here alone, making it new? This shows a new realistic potentially true scenario. Because it fits it might be the view to hold.

You said

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.

Well, of course all should do what is clearly taught by an Apostle. But what of the times when it isn't clear? Have you inferred that of me? Have I taken the time to write a commentary because I don't want to be seen as wanting to understand? Even among Apostolics there are disagreements of understanding of co/unco. How then is it possible for you to insinuate that any must do exactly what Paul says in 1Co11, when all Apostolics can't agree on what the Apostle meant? To insinuate that there has been clarity on what Paul teaches flies in the face of what is seen. Instead, it should be hoped is that a consensus view can be found which can be agreed upon, instead of saying there really isn't much point going further. Plz consider the instincts view as a view which, if believed, would bring Apostolic camps together in one, when amalgamating main points of their arguments.

I had hoped you wouldn't bow out but would take the time to consider and critique my points. It now appears that won't happen. It happens with you as has happened with other Apostolic preachers I've approached with my commentary. I got the feeling that if it wasn't the same as the established Apostolic doctrine then it wasn't worth taking the time to consider it, which they didn't. It is rejected just because. Even inspite of telling them it is a Biblically-derived doctrine which plugs holes. I had wanted them to take the time to examine the discrepancies seen in the currently-held-by-majority Apostolic doctrine. It would lead, if believed, to an adjustment of the doctrine to do away with the discrepancies. This is detailed in my commentary. The way it is now, Apostolic doctrines are avoided by some mainstream Christians who reject them when seen beside a co/unco doctrine which is full of holes. There is a need, which this Biblical instinct view may fill. Apostolic lack of consideration for something new, results then as being true among Apostolics which is also seen in other groups who call themselves Christians: if it isn't held by majority in my group then it's not kosher gospel. Oh, well. No one has control of another.

I would change my doctrine if proved wrong. No bothers to take the time to show my line of reasoning wrong. They just say it is wrong but don't provide evidence thereto.

One example of an Apostolic co/unco doctrine hole is: Paul says a man who has something down his head brings less glory to God because it covers the image of God. If true for a man then it would also be true for a woman, when they are equals as the image of God. The cover she is supposed to maintain at all times would then also lessen the glory of God. Is Paul trying to say that women don't bring God glory when having the cover they are supposed to have? No. The instincts view does away with this discrepancy, making it not appear. The view which the majority of Apostolics hold, uncut long, is a misinterpretation of the Biblical facts, which results in this discrepancy.

Thx so very much for taking the time to read the commentary. I sincerely appreciate your doing so and hope we can carry on a discussion.

[Amanah]

Don

Look at this thread on the subject, it's remarkable, it starts with the Nazirite vow but then goes deeply into head covering. Various people argue the topic from different viewpoints.

https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ar#post1533609

**

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don

Look at this thread on the subject, it's remarkable, it starts with the Nazirite vow but then goes deeply into head covering. Various people argue the topic from different viewpoints.

https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ar#post1533609

**

Thx for providing this link. Unfortunately you are too late to give me this as something new. I've read it; all 81 pages - twice. Costeon was a great inspiration for me. If you talk to him plz let him know of my thread.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, this is why Americans have to "choose" between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

And, it's why America is pretty much done for. I'm looking for the next phase in the big Scheme of Things.

I know you may not understand what I am talking about, and that's okay. If you know, you know. If you don't, well then this post wasn't really meant for you.

I wish you the best.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Don, this is why Americans have to "choose" between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

And, it's why America is pretty much done for. I'm looking for the next phase in the big Scheme of Things.

I know you may not understand what I am talking about, and that's okay. If you know, you know. If you don't, well then this post wasn't really meant for you.

I wish you the best.

How’s it going with Don?