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

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618545] Part1/3. Esaias: I want to thank you for providing a polite reply.

Quote of me from a previous post: I would change my doctrine if proved wrong. No *one* bothers to take the time to show my line of reasoning wrong. They just say it is wrong but don't provide evidence thereto.

For one example, Esaias says in post 14 "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." . I call him out on the lack of evidence for this and he then provides evidence, but continues by saying the following:

[QUOTE]I don't think you understand what "evidence" is, nor what "providing evidence" means. Just because you choose to maintain the opinion you started with, doesn't mean no evidence was provided to you. [QUOTE]

Had the evidence first been provided unprompted, there would have been no need for Esaias to be called out, nor need for his snarky reply. People who don't provide evidence make assumptions of other's knowledge; or conversely, want their opinions believed just because they view themselves as an authority. There is no doubt that Esaias is an excellent authority here on AFF but he is not above the need to show sources/evidence for the opinions shown without evidence in post 14. All who aren't privy to his knowledge then seek proof, not wanting to rely on human opinion alone. He then subsequently gave an excellent, enlightening reply on the unity of opinion of NT believers/preacher. Snarky comments should be left to be used as a last resort. Get snarky with someone snarky, which is not me.

I provided plenty of evidence to show:

1. Paul taught men ought to be uncovered and women covered when praying or prophesying.

It is safe to just re-state scripture using other words. But it doesn't actually take the time to show what Paul wants to be done. I've done so in my commentary. Along with showing how I've shown how currently held views are deficient, with what I call holes. This was done, mostly focussing on the view held by the majority, which I call uncut long. Knowing that your belief is that a woman needs a veil and not believing in uncut long, if you still hold the same view expressed a few years ago, I'll now address some holes in that view.

You will agree that 1Co11 has its view of the order of God's authority, which is based on what is seen at the Beginning. I'm not aware of any other Biblical writer to talk about this principle. Brilliant Paul is the first and only. What does this indicate to us? Paul is introducing something new, which is old as the Beginning, but hasn't been brought out to the open for all to know, v3.

The moment Adam was created it would be expected that he should honour his Creator. Was the needed respect coming from a command or was this deduced from the fact that he should, just because he was much inferior to his Creator? That no command for Adam's respect is seen recorded there, leads to the conclusion that the expected respect wasn't by command but because it was logical/right for Adam to give it. God never commanded respect for his order of authority at the Beginning and this needed respect continues to this day by the same means it is first seen - without command by what comes logically when an inferior is in the presence of a superior.

Yet some will say that this expected respect must now be seen as a command, showing that they think God needs help with the method he used, which he needs no help with. Some will say that God now commands this expected respect in 1Co11, by commanding the keeping of head-symbols. If believed so then God has changed his mind in the method used. He now no longer believes about the needed respect as he did at the Beginning, saying that a command must now be added. This isn't logical. All the parts are the same. God. Man. Woman. They have not essentially changed from the Beginning and it shouldn't be said that God now has added a command he could have given at the Beginning. Had the Lord ever wanted to command co/unco, the logical first place it would be seen is right at the Beginning. And what then of the keeping of symbols, if they aren't commands. Because they aren't commands doesn't change anything about the expectation that they should be shown. The thing which changes is whether they are commands. Which view, command or expectation, agrees most with what is seen in the Beginning? The Beginning is the basis for Paul's thoughts and seeing co/unco as expectation best coincides with what is seen in the Beginning. Seeing the need for co/unco coming about from instincts fits well because instincts shouldn't ever be seen as commands.

Enter Eve, who was created after Adam. From the moment of her creation it must be assumed that she should reverence the one she was created for, showing respect for God's order thereby. She wouldn't have come into existence unless the Lord had wanted to satisfy Adam's lack - no partner for Adam. She was created as a partner, as a helper to him. Was she expected to show respect for the one she was created for because God commanded her to? We have no record from the Beginning of such a command. The respect was a logically known expectation, similar to Adam's needed expectation to respect God. Some say that 1Co11 shows a command for this respect by the keeping of symbols. But, same story, second chapter. God needs no additional help with the ways and means he first showed he used in the Beginning. His wisdom ordained what is shown. If he doesn't command at the Beginning then he shouldn't be seen to command in 1Co11, changing methods, when all the parts are the same as they were at the Beginning. God expects man to respect him. God expects woman to respect her man. But not by command. It is right by logic to do so.

Esaias believes that the needed respect women should show is symbolised by her wearing a veil, only during prayer/prophecy times. Did I get this right, Esaias? In Esaias' view, Paul, rather God, is seen commanding women to wear a veil. If all the parts are as equal as they were at the Beginning, then the symbol Esaias believes is commanded, would have been needed to be worn by Eve, right? Even before the invention of clothing like veils - for she was naked. Or does Eve not need to show respect to God's order by the keeping of symbols because she doesn't have a prayer/prophesy time? (Let's also keep in mind that the needed respect was in effect before the Fall and didn't come about because of the Fall. It came about the moment of her creation.) And what evidence from the Beginning can be shown that a veil was commanded of her? What evidence do we have that a veil was available to her? None is shown. Also, no command for a veil is found anywhere in the OT. If it is commanded for the NT, then it should also be for the OT, for Paul bases his arguments from OT thought. The glaring absence of an OT command for a veil speaks, and all should take heed. But does Paul not speak of veils in 1Co11? Of course, but it should not be seen as by command. Better is to see that Paul/God does not command. Had God commanded in the Beginning or anywhere in the OT then we'd have something to talk about.

The history of Co shows women who practised long hair and the veil. It was a custom all were culturally expected to follow. To go to a place of public worship without a veil would flaunt the rules that most followed by custom. Paul wants the Co Christian to follow the custom that most follow, for reasons similar to the circumcision of Timothy. No one would say that Timothy was commanded to be circumcised according to the Jewish ways, nor should anyone say that the following of a Co custom of veiling by Christians was commanded. If so, it would be from love like Timothy's which "commands", not law.

Had God actually commanded a woman to wear a veil then we would also rightly expect to see the giving of details of the nature of the veil, for women to correctly satisfy the command to cover. We see nothing of the sort, nor the presence of a veil command other than what is misinterpreted from 1Co11. Paul asks, not commands, the keeping of the custom. The conclusions of 1Co11 should coincide with what is seen in the rest of the OT. Paul knows the OT and has based his life on it as the Word of God and wouldn't present views to Co which don't coincide with what had its start at the Beginning, nor not coinciding with the OT. How we interpret 1Co11 should also conincide with what is seen in the OT, not oppose it. The OT didn't command the veil and we shouldn't conclude that Paul does so now for the NT. Views which express this should be closely examined and modified to do away with this. A view can be held of 1Co11 which conforms to the Beginning, the OT and the NT. What is shown in the Beginning happened outside of Covenant and any view of respect for the order of authority should be seen to coincide with any Covenant seamlessly. The Covenant established with Adam commenced after the expected respect for God's order of authority commenced.

If Paul commands a veil in the early verses of 1Co11, then he changes his mind in a later verse, 15. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering (veil). If given, then given by who? God. Apparently, a reader can choose which verse to obey. But it is better to see that Paul commands neither hair nor veil. The OT commands neither and the words Paul uses should not be seen as commands to show alignment with the OT view of it.
Anyone wanting to see the holes of uncut long can read them in my commentary.

continued in 2 of 3

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618545] Part2/3.

2. The apostles all taught the same faith and practice.

You again conclude without showing what is concluded. He6 is the scriptural list of commonly held NT beliefs. Co/unco is not on it. If no one considered co/unco as a command then it would explain its absence.

3. The churches of God were united in faith and practice. Therefore,

Agreed, to a point. They did have differences of opinion on some things. Shown by Paul saying till we all come to unity of faith in the same passage he says One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. See also Ro14;15a.

4. The churches of God practiced men being uncovered and women being covered when praying or prophesying.

Saying so does not give explanation of how it was so. 1Co11 has many views expressed of it, by godly people who love him and the Word. It is easy to say that all should believe as God does on any subject but harder to state what this is, to everyone's satisfaction.

5. Anyone contending for some other custom or practice was not conformed to first century apostolic Christian practice.

What's happening with this comment? Are we now drifting to a position which shows that history shows how scripture should be interpreted? Did I get it right? If by saying 1st century you mean Biblical then who would disagree? The dilemma all face is finding that which you say is Apostolic practice. As of yet, no consensus has been agreed upon for all to follow. Many opinions exist all built on scripture and logical reasonings. But these contradict one another, having holes. If the instinct view has holes then they need to be exposed. I'm biassed for my own opinion and may have trouble seeing them. Plz critique the instinct view.

6. Anyone contending for some other custom or practice was not conformed to the apostle Paul's teaching and example.

OK. I'll buy into that (said facetiously) and say that anyone who doesn't conform to my interpretation of what Paul says is failing to conform to Paul. You want me to buy into your view of scriptural interpretation, don't you? I want you to buy into mine. My view may be as scripturally-derived as another's and should then be able to fit into this. It must be conformed to as much as any other view must be conformed to. I believe it to be a view which doesn't contradict most established theology, being Biblically derived.

I also showed (proved by reasoning, by logic) that:

Reader, take note of the extensive (said facetiously) reasonings to back his claims that I am in error by logic.

1. You do err in concluding Paul taught that if anyone disagreed with what he taught it was okay.

What you've stated is a conclusion and is not showing a line of reasoning showing my errors. Naw. What I say fits the facts quite well and should be held to, from a custom point of view. Customs aren't commands, so if someone decides not to follow a custom they only contradict society. Saying otherwise shows contradicting him. He says we have no such custom. The view you express results in Paul saying we have such custom and we all follow it. It takes the 'no' out of scripture, which is incorrect to do. Don't tamper with scripture, even if it seems logically correct to do so. What I show in my views is logically correct. It doesn't logically result in the apparent removal of a word Paul/God purposely uses.

2. You do err in concluding that Paul wanted Christians to do the opposite of what he taught if they didn't agree with what he taught.

You would be right to conclude so. Paul is smart and doesn't throw words on paper without reason. He wants people to follow his teaching and example. But saying so doesn't explain what it is that Paul clearly teaches. Spirit filled Apostolics disagree on what Paul teaches here, throwing barbs and accusations at others who have similar motives as they: they want to walk scripturally compliant. What is needed is a scriptural view of 1Co11 which Apostolics can unite around, in a view which honours all main points. I believe the instinct view to do so.

3. You do err in stating the reasons for men being uncovered and women being covered while praying or prophesying is "instinctual" (whatever that means).

According to Ge3.16 Eve and all women are born with a desire (instinct) that she will want to plz her man. Among many other things, she will want to try to satisfy her man's desire (coming from his nature/instincts) for pretty things. Long hair vs cut short or shaved hair, helps achieve it and is a cover on her head. If she cuts her hair short she disses her man's desires. She steps out of order by dissing, showing she doesn't comply with God's design (instilled by instincts) and doesn't respect the order of authority. But it is not a command. God never commanded respect for his order of authority in the Beginning and it should not be said that he changed his mind for the NT. Co/unco exists outside of Covenants, even when it is practised by Covenantal people. Would we not believe that all God-fearers previous to Paul would have shown due regard to God's order of authority? Yes. But if by Covenant then we have no evidence thereto. If not so, then show the command for the OT, for Adam, for Noah, for Abraham to prove this wrong. They all showed regard for God's order of authority, it should be assumed, and doing so without having a command thereto. If they had followed their instincts they would have shown this regard by the keeping of symbols. Instincts, not commands, is a common factor all had.

A man's instincts about shame are to cover the head when embarrassed. Thus, his words in v4. Something hang down the head is the meaning of the greek word here for cover. They are not man's instincts alone but also woman's. A shamed man does not glorify his creator, who would want all his creation to be proud, not ashamed of who they are. If a man habitually wears the cover symbolic of embarrassment he indicates a habitual state of embarrassment, who doesn't bring God glory. The cover on the head then would symbolise this lack of getting God glory. The symbol should not be present habitually for this reason. Men, because they have the instinct telling them to do so, have a feeling that when they are covered that they are in a shameful position. As men, they are more aware of these feelings, because they also have an instinct which calls them to rule their woman, Ge3.16. Rulers call for respect from those they rule. It is part and parcel of being a ruler. Because they are aware of this rulership instinct it makes them more aware of needing to show respect, than a woman would be aware of. She wasn't given a rulership instinct. Whether with long hair or a material cover men feel they are in a state of shame when covered. Their instincts, not commands tell them this. This is what has led men in most societies in most ages to have short hair. Long hair feels wrong because it is similar to wearing the cover which people want when embarrassed. Their instincts tell them this. And instincts aren't commands. But these feelings are easily overpowered by social pressures, resulting in times when most men had long hair. Short hair is instinctual and instincts aren't commands. The OT has no commands for men to be short haired, having commands for some men to be long-haired. Paul should be seen to have views coinciding with the OT he loves. What is seen in the OT is certain holy men are commanded by God to have long hair, contrary to what is said to be Apostolic doctrine from 1Co11. For Paul to command men to have short hair would show a rule contrary to what the OT shows by command.

Does 1Co11 clearly show that Paul speaks of instincts. Probably not. It would be unlikely to prove empirically that Paul speaks of instincts in 1Co11. It is a conclusion, which if embraced, leads to a view which doesn't have holes like the other views have. If it fits the facts well, then it may be the view to hold. It does not contradict theology other than 1Co11 theology. 1Co11 was written in an unclear manner. Therefore, most views on it rely on assumption to an extent; a mixture of logical reasonings, history and Biblical facts. It may not be right to then say any particular view is wrong. Obviously all will be partially right at minimum, because they have come from sincere people who desire to know truth to incorporate into practice, building on the Biblical facts. Whichever view one holds will then be the view which is the most logical to them to hold. No one should be judged by another if holding another view. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing for a short commentary on Ro14;15a. Instincts and their effects are seen in the Bible. To say I err when speaking about instincts is to say that the God who placed instincts erred in placing them. He placed them as guides which should be followed but doesn't make them commands which results in punishment those who do not follow them.

continued in 3 of 3

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

PART 3/3

Yet no commands are seen for co/unco at the Beginning, nor in any Covenant, unless the NT alone is said to command (which I believe to be an error of interpretation). Yet 1Co11 is seen by some to be commanding compliance. It makes no sense that something which started in the Beginning without command, should now be seen to be commanded. Nothing has changed about the 3 players which would result in the need of a change from the way things were done at the Beginning. What is shown there came about before any covenant and any changes in covenants should not be seen to affect, by change, what was seen in the Beginning. God didn't command then and he shouldn't be seen to command now. Do you agree that the Lord never commanded co/unco at the Beginning?

Plz define nature. You say clearly stated and any conclusions made must be done with a clear definition of what nature is. The way the word nature is seen affects what Paul is thought to say. Does nature command? Is what is seen 'by nature' then a command of God. However you view the meaning of nature it still doesn't translate to seeing it as a command. See page 28 in the commentary.

True indeed.

Not entirely true. I've used scripture, as you have, which are God's opinions.

Most of my posts are stand alone and aren't parts of a series.

You fabricated this allegation without consulting me. I certainly believe that Paul speaks with apostolic authority most of the time, but not always. Ask and I will provide examples. What you say of me is wished by you to be true but it isn't. What I do provide is a view that what Paul is said to say can be seen another way. You have difficulty agreeing to any view other than your view, as I do too. I invite you to take a step back to view an alternative view which is scriptural derived. They do no violence to that which are seen in He6 to be the first principles of the church. If you persist to hold your views, you then show you are content to hold a view which has holes. I'm not content to hold views with holes. Plz, if you change your mind about continuing, then expose the holes in the instincts view.

Well, how bout we not rehash a thread we've left. Concentrate on what's on hand.

Absolutely not true. Rather, you say this because some of our conclusions clash making you think from that, that I do not wish to conform to Biblical views. Rather say this, than to say I wish not to live in conformity to the Bible.

Is this an attempt to lump all of my thoughts into one pile you claim is garbage? People would expect something different from someone such as your self. Such generalizations smack of bigotry. If you are frustrated by some of my views, then that may be understandable. But generalizations such as made here are unacceptable.

We all interpret scripture from what we see and from where we stand. Scripture comes to us from other languages and cultures which cause difficulty in understanding at times. If my views don't coincide with your views, what difference does it make? They are scriptural views. If they contradict your views then it becomes necessary to examine the methods used by both sides to see if they are logically derived or if they contradict established doctrinal views. If I expose a hole in any reasoning process then care should be taken to re-examine it. If I rub you the wrong way with my views it may be only because they don't agree with the views you thought were well established, causing feelings of exasperation in you. Are you trying to indicate that only your views are ones to be held? Do you not allow others to have correct views from the vast pool of truth called the Bible, which are contrary to yours?

I'd bet that this is a great exaggeration of what is really seen. Many times I've shown agreement with others by stating 'agreed' or 'true' or 'yes' which I now wonder have ever been said of my words? I might now develop an insecurity complex because no one ever agrees with anything I say. Everyone thinks my whole life is wrong. Benincasa will now join in with an strong amen.

You imply my views are absurd without specifying, leaving me defenceless against my opponent. Why not fight fair and give specifics when serious allegations are made. I want to be known as one who fights fair, because truth is fair to all. You thus establish yourself as the authority which should never be contradicted. Is this how you want to be seen? You've taken a cheap shot against someone you see as beneath you. My views have been derived from the scriptures. On this I stand. Let's put the vitriol to the side and press on, if you would plz, and show errors in my thinking in a systematic logical method, done without character assassination.

Let's get specific of these absurdities you speak of, and give me a chance to respond in the thread they are found, instead of your just making an accusation here long after the fact, and not giving a chance to respond. It is not gentlemanly to do as you've without chance to respond. Alternately, withdraw the accusation made here in a post here.

I had hoped that you would have, as a truth seeker, taken serious consideration of the holes shown of other's views in my 1Co11 commentary. I realise this would take much effort which you may not be willing to give. No one should be faulted for not doing so for these reasons, though it is hoped that you will do so. As such when not doing so you give indication that any view but yours is worthy of consideration in spite of allegations with evidence contrary. You have yet to give serious rebuttal to many of my views, again standing on the sidelines shouting 'they're wrong' but not taking the time to show by reason and Word how so. Oh, well. What you believe and propagate as truth isn't fine by me. I'm trying to reach you, hoping for your consideration which may allow you to more correctly portray truth. Plz do so.

Amen and Amen.

Rest assured that there is no intentional gas-lighting coming from the guy on this end. Only a desire to share truth. Your perception of gas-lighting is in error.

Plz change your mind, doing so for truth's sake, for a view which all Apostolics can stand behind united.

. END of 3/3

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Evang.Benincasa;1618586] 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.

Reader, plz bring up in your own post any good thoughts which he brings up on the current topic, to hear my reply to it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

[QUOTE=donfriesen1;1618590]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

Reader, plz bring up in your own post any good thoughts which he brings up on the current topic, to hear my reply to it.

If it was good enough for Elijah it’s good enough for me.

[Amanah]

The biblical basis for head covering during worship is rooted in the creation order and hierarchical relationships established in Scripture. In 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, Paul addresses the Corinthian church's questions on worship practices, emphasizing recognition of authority.

He establishes the divine hierarchy: God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman (1 Corinthians 11:3). This order reflects Genesis 2:18-24, where God creates Adam first, followed by Eve's formation from Adam.

The concept of κεφαλή (kephalē) is crucial, specifically referring to authority (1 Corinthians 11:3). This understanding is reinforced by Ephesians 5:22-24 and Colossians 3:18, emphasizing submission. In worship, head covering signifies recognition of this authority.

Κατακαλύπτω (katakalyptō) means to cover or veil (1 Corinthians 11:6), while ἀκατακαλύπτω (akatakalyptō) implies shame in uncovered or unveiled (1 Corinthians 11:5). Nature teaches by example that long hair serves as a natural covering (1 Corinthians 11:15), and angels witness worship, emphasizing reverence (1 Corinthians 11:10).

The symbolic significance of head covering isn't related to culture as the Corinthian culture was pagan. Paul emphasizes timeless scriptural principles and divine hierarchy. Head covering symbolizes spiritual realities: submission, reverence, and recognition of authority.

The biblical guidance for head covering during worship stems from creation order, hierarchical relationships, and symbolic significance. By embracing this practice, believers demonstrate reverence for divine authority and recognition of timeless principles.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618592]

I'd like to have a little more understanding of the place you stand. Could you specify what it is you believe in this regard? Most of my thoughts have been developed around what I label for convenience "uncut long", which I think is the view held by the majority of Apostolics, man and woman. Does your believe have a label that would id it? Can you direct me to a summary of it, for man and woman?

In a reply to your post, there would be no sense for me to make statements that are directed to uncut long, if you in fact don't believe in it.

[Amanah]

[QUOTE=donfriesen1;1618624]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I'd like to have a little more understanding of the place you stand. Could you specify what it is you believe in this regard? Most of my thoughts have been developed around what I label for convenience "uncut long", which I think is the view held by the majority of Apostolics, man and woman. Does your believe have a label that would id it? Can you direct me to a summary of it, for man and woman?

In a reply to your post, there would be no sense for me to make statements that are directed to uncut long, if you in fact don't believe in it.

I'm avoiding the debate over uncut vs veiled and focusing on the mandate being based in scripture and Apostolic authority rather than an optional suggestion.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I'm avoiding the debate over uncut vs veiled and focusing on the mandate being based in scripture and Apostolic authority rather than an optional suggestion.

I think I got you. I will get back to you later.

[Esaias]

1. Paul taught men ought to be uncovered and women covered when praying or prophesying.

2. The apostles all taught the same faith and practice.

3. The churches of God were united in faith and practice. Therefore,

4. The churches of God practiced men being uncovered and women being covered when praying or prophesying.

5. Anyone contending for some other custom or practice was not conformed to first century apostolic Christian practice.

6. Anyone contending for some other custom or practice was not conformed to the apostle Paul's teaching and example.