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

[votivesoul]

Furthermore, Don, you then attempted to call me out on the carpet for being lazy and willing to hide behind a screenname, further cementing the true caliber of your character.

You know nothing of the life I live away from this forum, of the constraints upon my time, or of the burdens of responsibility I have undertaken to maintain. You know nothing of my physical abilities and health, or the lack thereof. And yet, you were willing to chop me down in your complete ignorance.

What does that say about you?

And as it pertains the using a screen name, you can stop your moral posturing right there. You claiming your name is Don is of no avail. I have no reason, apart from the word of a stranger on the internet, to believe you at all. Perhaps you're telling the truth, and perhaps you have no reason to lie, or to hide, but YOU CANNOT PROVE who you are on this forum, and I will prove it to you.

Here is a list of names:

Edith Marie Arbour
Daniel J. McKim
Gregory Michael Evans
Aaron Clayton VanDeBogert
Julianna Denise Peterson
Debbie Lee Hernandez
Andrew Jeremiah Johannesen

Of these, tell me, which of them are made up? Are any of them my real name? Some are women's names; others are the names of men.

Am I a man or woman?

How old am I?

54
36
29
46
70
61

If I tell you I am 46 years old, on what basis do you believe me, a stranger on the internet?

You see, you can guess, and you might be right. You can trust me to tell you the truth, and I could be lying. So, whether I tell you my real name as a screen name, or use a handle like votivesoul, the issue is moot.

So, get over yourself, already.

[votivesoul]

And finally, as it pertains to your views on 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, refuting it is almost a waste of time.

The fact is, you have read into the text, i.e. you have committed eisegesis, a word that is not present, interpreting Paul's comments about nature to refer to human instincts.

You have likely done this due to an etymological or root word fallacy, thinking because one word is rooted another, that they must share an equivalent definition.

I suspect, and please correct me if I am wrong here, I think you looked up the Greek word nature in 1 Corinthians 11:14, and found the word phusis. Then, at some point, while reading and studying 2 Peter 2:12 and/or Jude 1:10, you came across the Greek words phusikos and/or phusikós, respectively, and, seeing these two terms translated as "instinctively" in any number of English translations, you felt you had an "Aha/Eureka" moment you decided was divine revelation from God.

And now, no one and nothing can convince you are wrong, not even everything Esaias wrote in this thread to disprove your view. After all, in the face of "divine revelation from God" what good is sound theological exegesis of the Holy Scriptures.

So, you know, good luck with that...

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=votivesoul;1619527]And finally....

Thx for the reply, Votivesoul. As time calls me elsewhere now, I will at some later time reply to your comments.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=votivesoul;1619527] The following is a reply to

your posts 363-366.


Paul indicates in 1Co11 that his source for thoughts about ‘God’s order of

authority’ is in the Beginning. When you and I go to the Beginning, we see no

statements or commands having to do with this topic. Paul seemingly pulls

these thoughts out of thin air. We call the method he uses – deductive

reasoning - drawn from actual events and not from commands or statements.


We might be tempted to say that the order of authority is made up by Man,

when God says nothing of it there.


While deductive reasoning explains where his thoughts for ‘God’s order of

authority’ come from, this does not yet explain where the idea about

‘showing respect to God’s order of authority’ by using symbols, comes from.

To repeat, there is nothing there to indicate anything about ‘symbols’, is

there? Indeed, nothing at all in all the OT scriptures for the first 4050 years

of Man’s history. Paul is the first ever to say anything about symbols.


We then might ask how A&E would have learned about showing respect for

God’s order of authority, and how to use symbols to do so, when God at the

Beginning is silent about both. The obvious question to ask is this, ‘Did God

want A&E and those of the OT to show respect to God’s order of authority by

the use of symbols?’ Is it conceivable that God would only expect those in the

NT to show respect to God’s order of authority, and they alone to show it by

use of symbols?


It is not logical to do so. Paul indicates his source of concepts is the scripture

in the Beginning. It would then have been applicable for all those at that time

as well, if that time is the source for the thought. Paul has discovered a

principle. He discovers it by examining the scripture. If the principle he sees

is active for any, then it is active for all. When he indicates the source of his

thoughts are the Beginning scriptures, it then eliminates revelation from God

as the source.


Where then does Paul get the idea about showing respect using symbols? We

might say that it is revelation, but when he points to the Beginning as the

source, it can’t be revelation. Where then does he get the idea that respect

for God’s authority must be expressed by symbols? It can’t be that he gets it

from any OT command or statement thereto, because no one knows the

whereabouts of these scriptures. We also can read the OT scripture, and we

see no reference to these symbols by statements or commands.


It may very well be that the source is the same place as the source for ‘the

respect for God’s order of authority’.


Consider the following hypothetical but potentially realistic story. Adam is

known to often compliment Eve on her beautiful hair. One day they have a

fight and in anger she chops off the hair he likes. Angry people do irrational

things. She must now decide whether she will again let her hair grow long,

because Adam likes it, or to continue to spite him and have it short. Long hair

has become a symbol of her submission to her husband’s likes. At the same

time, it symbolizes her reverence to God’s order of authority. She was made

by God for Adam’s likes. Will she now fulfill her creational purpose and do the

things which plz her man?


A hypothetical story from the Beginning, without actual commands or

statements of God, has shown the principles that Paul speaks of in 1Co11.

The concepts do not come from commands or statements of God, but from

deductive reasoning. If Paul can think up these concepts without seeing

commands thereto, then it is conceivable that someone else can. It may be

the explanation how OT saints could be seen to have shown respect to God’s

order of authority by symbols when there are no commands thereto in the OT

for the first 4050 years of Man. It isn’t conceivable to think that they did not

show this respect the same way that people of the NT would.


God never commanded A&E to love him, but it is a principle that they are

expected to, just because. God expected A&E and the OT saints to reverence

him by symbols, but not from commands. He expects them to do so from

principles found by deductive reasoning. If God never commanded it in the

Beginning, he would not command it in the NT. But he would hope that Man

would do so the same as he hoped they would love him.


In the absence of another explanation, it may be that this explanation is the

one to hold. It uses the same methods and same scripture Paul uses.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=votivesoul;1619527] The following is a reply to

your posts 363-366.


Paul indicates in 1Co11 that his source for thoughts about ‘God’s order of

authority’ is in the Beginning. When you and I go to the Beginning, we see no

statements or commands having to do with this topic. Paul seemingly pulls

these thoughts out of thin air. We call the method he uses – deductive

reasoning - drawn from actual events and not from commands or statements.


We might be tempted to say that the order of authority is made up by Man,

when God says nothing of it there.


While deductive reasoning explains where his thoughts for ‘God’s order of

authority’ come from, this does not yet explain where the idea about

‘showing respect to God’s order of authority’ by using symbols, comes from.

To repeat, there is nothing there to indicate anything about ‘symbols’, is

there? Indeed, nothing at all in all the OT scriptures for the first 4050 years

of Man’s history. Paul is the first ever to say anything about symbols.


We then might ask how A&E would have learned about showing respect for

God’s order of authority, and how to use symbols to do so, when God at the

Beginning is silent about both. The obvious question to ask is this, ‘Did God

want A&E and those of the OT to show respect to God’s order of authority by

the use of symbols?’ Is it conceivable that God would only expect those in the

NT to show respect to God’s order of authority, and they alone to show it by

use of symbols?


It is not logical to do so. Paul indicates his source of concepts is the scripture

in the Beginning. It would then have been applicable for all those at that time

as well, if that time is the source for the thought. Paul has discovered a

principle. He discovers it by examining the scripture. If the principle he sees

is active for any, then it is active for all. When he indicates the source of his

thoughts are the Beginning scriptures, it then eliminates revelation from God

as the source.


Where then does Paul get the idea about showing respect using symbols? We

might say that it is revelation, but when he points to the Beginning as the

source, it can’t be revelation. Where then does he get the idea that respect

for God’s authority must be expressed by symbols? It can’t be that he gets it

from any OT command or statement thereto, because no one knows the

whereabouts of these scriptures. We also can read the OT scripture, and we

see no reference to these symbols by statements or commands.


It may very well be that the source is the same place as the source for ‘the

respect for God’s order of authority’.


Consider the following hypothetical but potentially realistic story. Adam is

known to often compliment Eve on her beautiful hair. One day they have a

fight and in anger she chops off the hair he likes. Angry people do irrational

things. She must now decide whether she will again let her hair grow long,

because Adam likes it, or to continue to spite him and have it short. Long hair

has become a symbol of her submission to her husband’s likes. At the same

time, it symbolizes her reverence to God’s order of authority. She was made

by God for Adam’s likes. Will she now fulfill her creational purpose and do the

things which plz her man?


A hypothetical story from the Beginning, without actual commands or

statements of God, has shown the principles that Paul speaks of in 1Co11.

The concepts do not come from commands or statements of God, but from

deductive reasoning. If Paul can think up these concepts without seeing

commands thereto, then it is conceivable that someone else can. It may be

the explanation how OT saints could be seen to have shown respect to God’s

order of authority by symbols when there are no commands thereto in the OT

for the first 4050 years of Man. It isn’t conceivable to think that they did not

show this respect the same way that people of the NT would.


God never commanded A&E to love him, but it is a principle that they are

expected to, just because. God expected A&E and the OT saints to reverence

him by symbols, but not from commands. He expects them to do so from

principles found by deductive reasoning. If God never commanded it in the

Beginning, he would not command it in the NT. But he would hope that Man

would do so the same as he hoped they would love him.


In the absence of another explanation, it may be that this explanation is the

one to hold. It uses the same methods and same scripture Paul uses.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=votivesoul;1619527]

votivesoul is an "administrator" of AFF. They, among others, by their time and talents makes this forum possible. We owe them respect and gratitude. God bless them immensely! Any disrespect perceived by them is not to be taken of their person or dedication but may be intended to show stances they have taken and disagreed with. Plz, sir or madam, do not think that you are unappreciated while you work behind the scenes, though others may be seen disagreeing with your points.

There is a logical reason for being repetitive. Any new idea is first seen as suspect, when it is 'the unfamiliar'. The unfamiliar is uncomfortable. Familiarity leads to being comfortable with it. Repeated mention of the new leads to familiarity and comfortableness, and perhaps eventual acceptance.

I don't want to be seen as avoiding any "theological" points one makes in rebuttal, so I'll reply to those "theological" you've made in posts 364-366.

post 364

Don, this thread is 37 pages long. The vast majority of the posts contained in this thread are of Esaias asking you questions and rebutting your espoused views, with sound exegesis of the passage in question, and of you attempting to redress his rebuttals. True. Esaias has great knowledge and understanding. I would wish to have 1/1000 of want he possesses. Esaias makes good points and I've acknowledged them by stating so. You've failed to mention that I have done so, focussing only on the negative. In general, he fails to speak well of any others good points. It appears that he is unable to acknowledge the good points others make, for reasons unrevealed. I've especially pointed out the good he writes of as Natural Law. (perhaps seen in post 210). He unwittingly there proves my points of instincts, yet not acknowledging that does.

Obviously, he has written many rebuttal posts, which I responded to. He fails to disprove my points. When he fails to respond, to my rebuttal of his rebuttal, it leads to the impression that the points I make are sound. I've repeatedly asked and goaded him to prove my points wrong. His attempts at only some of them haven't been conclusive. See post 334,335 for a compilation. Had he made uncontestable rebuttals, I would acknowledge as I have acknowledged the good points he's made. I strive to be fair because truth is of great importance, regardless of where it comes from. It would please me to see the points of the instinct view proved as wrong, if wrong. As of yet, none have, but few have taken as much effort as Esais. Amanah is a close second. They are to be commended for their efforts. I wish I could say the same for all others. Yes, there are some other comments from other posters, which don't specifically address your views, including a few of my own.

You are nuts, which is to say, colloquially speaking, mentally unsound and unwell, suffering from some kind of psychological distress or disease, or... Well, sure. The only 'perfect' sound-thinker was the Lord Jesus. All others have deficiencies in many areas to varying degrees. I'm sure you're in there also. But if you mean to say that a scriptural view is nuts just because it is different from the majority, then perhaps we should all chuck our Oneness books and migrate to a Trinitarian church. We would all then feel a part of the majority who hold "sane" beliefs, right? Only the majority can hold correct theological views! Plz note that there may be heavy irony in these sentences to discern.

You are intellectually dishonest, unwilling to be truthful to yourself and others, about what has ACTUALLY transpired in this thread, or... We all have your opinions of others. They are all right to varying degrees. No one can say of another that they are 100% dishonest. Only God has the insight to be able to give an unbiased opinion like this. You are not God. If you will respect my opinion of myself, I'll give it, biased though it is. What I share in AFF I share in all sincerity. The Bible and the Lord Jesus are the love of my life. I cherish truth above all else. I am not intentionally intellectually dishonest and invite your efforts to show otherwise, something which you have not taken efforts to do, yet.

You are an intentional falsifier and deceiver, that is, someone who knows they are attempting to falsify (turn into a lie) the reality of the matter, in order to hoodwink anyone who might be reading along, or just skimming the thread, or I fear God, who will judge every idle word given. I endeavour to speak the truth as one who will be so judged. But if you think my points are wrong, I invite you to take one and show its error. Taking just one would be a good start. When not yet having done so thus far, I fear you will not now. You may be content to shout bad names from the sidelines instead of making theological responses. But that's what true Christians do to true Christians, right? You may sense a little irony here.

You are running for political office, which, as Esaiah pointed out, is like a Russian Nesting Doll, in that to run for office/be a politician, usually indicates a person is somehow all of the three: nuts, dishonest, and deceptive. Now, my writing that was an attempt at being a bit cheeky, but you couldn't take the joke, apparently. Great care must be taken when using humour, jest, or irony when in text. You must be very certain that it is correctly presented or you will be perceived other than what you intend. You have failed in your past attempts to be seen as cheeky, when you are the only one thinking you have done so. I love humour and have recently complimented jediwill on his use of humour to deflect from my criticism of him. See post 353. Plz don't give up in your attempts to -- just be more pronounced so all will get it.

I'd like to point out that Esaias thinks that those of the OT were not required to show respect to God's order of authority with symbols, the same as the NT saints were. It is incomprehensible that all humans of all time would not be expected to show the same thing. If you choose to run with Esaias in all his points, then this is pointed out as one of the points he's made in this thread you will hold.

post 365

You see, you can guess, and you might be right. You can trust me to tell you the truth, and I could be lying. So, whether I tell you my real name as a screen name, or use a handle like votivesoul, the issue is moot. As a Christian forum, it may be right that most will take efforts to be truthful. I assume everyone that bothers to comment will be truthful. It is unnecessary for any to say they are.

post 366

And finally, as it pertains to your views on 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, refuting it is almost a waste of time. I wouldn't waste my breath telling someone they are nuts, intellectually dishonest, an intentional falsifier and deceiver if I thought they will not receive it. What is your point when wasting your words and time. Rather than doing so to waste, why not use your efforts to actually disprove point by point the things I've pointed out. Then you would actually do something of value. You'll have noticed, if you've read the previous posts, that I respond to most points of rebuttal, stating 'I agree' when someone has made a good point. But I will not say that I agree with everything, when what is said is poor reasoning or unscriptural. Perhaps you'd want me to roll over and play dead whenever anyone makes any rebuttal using poor reasoning? Do you want me to give up just because someone has made a contrary-to-mine point? People that hold truth aren't inclined to do so. Some see truth as worth contending for.

The fact is, you have read into the text, i.e. you have committed eisegesis, a word that is not present, interpreting Paul's comments about nature to refer to human instincts. I have pointed out that Ge3.16 shows that God places instincts in Man. I agree with God. To say Man does not have instincts would contradict scripture. I prefer not to do so. Do you by your comments attempt to state that people do not have instincts? Some might conclude you say so. Why would you want to be seen as not believing the obvious? If you say I commit eisegesis, then do you also say Paul commits eisegesis? He writes 1Co11 in response to what he reads in the Beginning. Pray tell, where in the Beginning is there any statement like 1Co11 except the statements of Adam and Eve's creation? There are no statements about God's order of authority or of keeping symbols to show respect to the order. Paul thus, reads between the lines. Is he as wrong as you say I am?

Please don't pretend that you also do not 'read betwen the lines'. Anyone doing so is dishonest with themselves.

You have likely done this due to an etymological or root word fallacy, thinking because one word is rooted another, that they must share an equivalent definition. Plz specify my error. I will not respond to a generality I may or may not have made.

I suspect, and please correct me if I am wrong here, I think you looked up the Greek word nature in 1 Corinthians 11:14, and found the word phusis. Indeed I have. Then, at some point, while reading and studying 2 Peter 2:12 and/or Jude 1:10, you came across the Greek words phusikos and/or phusikós, respectively, and, seeing these two terms translated as "instinctively" in any number of English translations, you felt you had an "Aha/Eureka" moment you decided was divine revelation from God. Sorry, I have not. I've seen them in En translations, as pointed out by Amanah. And do you want to denigrate me on a supposition? Is that what you want to do by this, when you haven't taken previous time to show my points wrong using scriptural arguments?

And now, no one and nothing can convince you are wrong, not even everything Esaias wrote in this thread to disprove your view. Oh, the scriptural 'good ole boys club' argument. I see. My buddy Esaias and I are in the same club. He's never wrong. I believe the same as he and therefore I can't be wrong. Therefore, no efforts are required by me to actually disprove the points another makes, because my buddy and I both are right. We've got sound hermeneutics. Trust us. After all, in the face of "divine revelation from God" what good is sound theological exegesis of the Holy Scriptures. Indeed true. Just your saying this doesn't make this true of me. But keep trying and eventually you'll persuade someone to believe you, while continuing to not use sound reasoning or scriptural arguments to show my arguments wrong, as you've not done so far. Had you actually taken the time previous to this post to try, then.... But you haven't. Reader, if you don't think this is true, then search this thread using votivesoul in'search by user name'. He says precious little against the iv by theological arguments yet has the nerve to say I'm wrong without showing why. Lord have mercy if Apostolic theologians use such methods as this. It says 'Believe me because I'm here and my lips are moving'.


So, you know, good luck with that...

When a view is not conclusively shown to be in error by sound reasoning and scriptural arguments, it may indicate that it is unshakeable truth. It should then be received by all.

Either prove the instincts view wrong or accept it. Stop the name calling. Doing so is not using theological arguments.

[donfriesen1]

There you have it ladies and gentlemen. Posters

cast dispersions in the direction of the original poster of this thread. Then

they run off without showing how or why the conclusions of the original

poster are wrong.



From their response we must conclude one of the

following: 1) The posters have nothing to say which would refute the claims

of the iv. In effect, this says it is a solid view. If not, they would take the time

to show it wrong. 2) The posters do not want to

take the time. They aren't too busy to call someone nuts but too busy to

say how and why. After 370 posts it is a lttle late to say this.3) Posters

see the iv as so completely wacko that they think any time spent

refuting it would be like sinning. 4) The posters see the

value of the iv but don't want to change their own long-held views, which

they've always defended, and because of this, do not want to be seen as

changing their mind.



Truth calls for the proper response. A Biblically-based

view must be proved wrong or accepted. Reject views which are not

supported by scripture nor by reason. Truth demands that its claims be the

only ones held.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

There you have it ladies and gentlemen. Posters

cast dispersions in the direction of the original poster of this thread. Then

they run off without showing how or why the conclusions of the original

poster are wrong.



From their response we must conclude one of the

following: 1) The posters have nothing to say which would refute the claims

of the iv. In effect, this says it is a solid view. If not, they would take the time

to show it wrong. 2) The posters do not want to

take the time. They aren't too busy to call someone nuts but too busy to

say how and why. After 370 posts it is a lttle late to say this.3) Posters

see the iv as so completely wacko that they think any time spent

refuting it would be like sinning. 4) The posters see the

value of the iv but don't want to change their own long-held views, which

they've always defended, and because of this, do not want to be seen as

changing their mind.



Truth calls for the proper response. A Biblically-based

view must be proved wrong or accepted. Reject views which are not

supported by scripture nor by reason. Truth demands that its claims be the

only ones held.

Don,

You are all mouth and no ears. That's why no one cares to engage with you on your views any longer. Your hermeneutical methods are flawed, therefore your conclusions and teachings are flawed. But you refuse to acknowledge the flaw, even when it has been abundantly pointed out to you. You're effectively playing the "I'm taking my ball and going home" approach to posting. It's rather odious. You either expect posters to agree outright with your views, or, by your own estimation, they are simply incapable of disproving your views. Nice. No one here agrees with you. That makes you the only common denominator in why no one agrees with you. Ever think of that?

But I digress.

This only I would care to know:

Who in your local church up there in Canada believes what you believe? Does the teaching ministry and pastoral leadership teach what you believe to the congregation?

Which commentator, theologian, expositor, writing minister, or denominational leader from the 1st century till now believes and teachers what you believe and teach? I'll wait.

And finally, in your own words, what proof would you possible accept that would cause you to renounce your views?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I don’t think Don attends a church.

He’s his own congregation.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Don

Thank you for your respectful reply.


You've said:

You either expect posters to agree outright

with your views, or, by your own estimation, they are simply

incapable of disproving your views.

You've left

something out. I would hope, as all posters do, that all would want

others to agree when correctly interpreting scripture, using

rational means to do so. Just disagreeing with my view fails to

explain how it is wrong. Of course some disagree and have taken

efforts to show how so. When I've shown how their efforts are

flawed, this doesn't mean that I'm pig-headly stubborn. My retort

to a rebuttal should be countered by their explanation why the

retort is wrong. This hasn't been done. Apparently, when their

rebuttal is offered, it is offered with their understanding that I will

kowtow to it without opposition. This I will not do unless it is

known to me to be true. I will bow to truth and rational reason. If

everyone bowed whenever someone countered a point of their's,

then the Apostolic church would not exist. Truth demands that

lovers of truth continue to hold truth in face of disagreement.



Whether anyone here in Canada or in history agrees with me or

not is not a theological point of proof. Yet this is not a totally

irrelevant counterpoint. People that know and recognise truth will

all agree when truth is presented. A consensus of truth-opinion

may then be shown. This is what you refer to. But you as an Apostolic must

know the scripture

that says the way of God is the narrow way and few that be that

find it. Some religious people who profess to know God reject

gospel truth, in spite of their claims. If you are not aware, this iv is

a new-to-me view. If I am the first to hold it then two possibilities

exist. It will either be proved wrong or it will be accepted by some

to continue. As of yet in my estimation, those Apostolics who have

read it are a poor example of good efforts shown to prove the iv

claims wrong. Instead of taking good theological efforts, most

have only proffered negative untheological comments. Some have

given counter-arguments which actually showed support. I'm

waiting for those, such as yourself and others in AFF, to show how

the points I've made are wrong, using theological arguments which

all readers can examine for acceptance or rejection. Those readers

who are awake are waiting for some strong theological counter-

points to the iv. Are you the one to give them?



As an Apostolic you must be aware of the slow acceptance of Jesus

name baptism after its initial accidental revelation in that camp

meeting long ago. That it wasn't embraced by all gung-ho is not

surprising. It is human nature to resist change. But time and love

for the Word has prevailed but only in a minority who love truth

more than anything. It is not surprising that no one rushes to

accept the iv. As it was with baptism, so shall it be with the iv. I

would contend that it may be truth which seemingly was long lost

had been re-discovered. As with baptism so it may be with head-

covering. But the iv may yet be proved wrong.



I am one with a new view of head-coverings. I may yet be proved

wrong. I've asked sincerely for a critical review of it. No one ever

wants to be a lone sheep in the middle of the pasture. No one, not

me. But it takes the one to take the first step which others may

then follow. I cannot deny what I've been shown. I must share or I

fear I would sin. That I'm alone and the only one to now hold the

iv is an unfortunate but irrelevant truth-wise reality which I must

now bear in hope that this will change. Truth will prevail in those

who love truth more than tradition.



Answer this question for yourself or in print for all here in AFF.

Whether you hold to the vv or the ulv, why is it that only 1Co11

shows support for it? We are constantly told by scholars not to

build our doctrines on only one scripture. Read the whole Book

they say. If it is God's view then the whole Book will show support

for it and not only one passage. Does the whole Book show

support for your scriptural view? Or does another view better

represent the whole Bible?



Answer this question for yourself or in print for all here in AFF.

Whether you believe in the vv or the ulv, it appears that Paul is

telling the Co to do that which their culture is already practising!

Co culture believed that a woman should have both long hair and

the veil. Yet those who hold to the vv or the ulv say that Paul now

commands them to keep as from God. Am I the only one that sees

something awry in this?



Answer this question for yourself or in print for all here in AFF. How

is it that God does not tell A&E about co/unco if he expects them

to show respect to God's order of authority by symbols? Does it

make sense to you that A&E were not expected to show respect by

symbols? If they are expected to, then how can they ever learn of

it when God is silent? It must be that it is learned other ways. I

suggest instincts.


Answer this question for yourself or in print for all here in AFF. If

Paul shows us in 1Co11 that the Beginning is the source for what

he believes, then why, when we read the same scriptures he does

in Ge2,3, why do we see nothing of words from God having to do

with the subject? We must conclude either that he speaks from

revelation or that he makes it up (deductive reasoning). If he

speaks from revelation then he has no need to refer to the

Beginning scriptures. If is not revelation, then he has then made it up.

If he makes it up, then it is not a command of God. Paul has

discovered a principle by deductive reasoning. Principles, which are

good and should be followed, are not commands. Thus, Paul does

not command the keeping of respect for God's order of authority

by symbols. He reveals a principle. (Alas, Apostolics, who love the

idea that God is always commanding, have turned a principle into

a command. This in spite of knowing that God does not command

tithing and then practice it as by principle.) Even if my church or

no one from history has shown they believe this, it does not

detract that it is truth. Can you show it is not truth? Can you show

that Paul does not use deductive reasoning by refering to words of

God at the Beginning? Good luck with that.



Reader, Votivesoul and Esaias and Evang Benincasa think I'm nuts

and have stated they think so. Ask yourself about the above

paragraphs: are they the words of someone who is nuts? Are these

not the words of reason of someone who has read the Word of God

but offers an alternate interpretation than the traditional?



Lets not hold our breath, for these are experienced saints with

great knowledge who may yet dash the iv to the floor and crush it

underfeet with their great abilities. (I do not mock. I sincerely

believe these have much greater understanding and knowledge

than mine.) Yet I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ who has given me

the iv understanding and boast that his knowledge and wisdom

surpasses theirs.