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

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Just you and I, building our dreams together......

Yes

[donfriesen1]

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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, the above is a reply. How can you be trusted to respond in spiritual matters, when you can’t understand something this trivial?

I suggest you contemplate this on the tree of woe.

[donfriesen1]

COMPILATION.

PART 1/2

What Esaias has said/would say in support of the vv:
1. He would say that 1Co11.5,6 shows Paul is commanding the veil.
2. That Paul is an apostle and uses his authority as such. Therefore, whenever he speaks he commands.
3. He would say that the traditions of v2 refer to NT traditions of veiling, p18.
4. He says apostolics do what Paul teaches. Thus he concludes that being apostolic by definition includes a correct covering. p18.
5. He would say that all the NT time churches were uniform in beliefs. They held a tradition of veiling and it then must be concluded that Paul is teaching the Co's the correct response to the tradition, p27.
6. He says that the Bible illustrates a distinction between OT and NT, using mitered priest to show it, p57.
7. He uses the command to sing, which doesn't ask exactly how or what to sing, as an example that God may command something (such as a woman's cover) but doesn't always state exactly how so. Other examples are: 1 the OT fringe a Jew was commanded. 2 God's request for Adam to name the animals. Thus Esaias may be concluded to say that any head covering symbol is acceptable. p95.
8. He shows that the the majority of Co's can be complimented for keeping NT traditions of communion, yet individuals can be criticized for not keeping it correctly. Therefore Paul can compliment the Co on keeping the tradition of veiling, yet take the time to teach about it for those who do not, p131.
9. Says the NT veil-cover has nothing to do with culture. It is about a command. But admits the OT veil was a custom, p132.
10. He says that the Bible illustrates a difference between the OT and the NT; using glory to show it, p141.
11. He says new comers to the covering idea, when reading 1Co11, think it teaches a veil, p141.
12. That Gk word definitions shows support, p170.
13. The cover of v15 is a different cover than the cover of v5,6. The cover of v15 is a part of the iilustration from nature, p170.
14. He says the putting on of the veil is only for times of prayer and prophecy, showing an action of compliance to what he says is commanded by God. Those who think that long hair is the covering fail to perform an action of compliance just for times of prayer and prophecy, p170.
15. The commands for co/unco in 1Co11 are only for the NT times, p192.
16. Truths are true everywhere, regardless of time or location, p204.
17. Changes in covenants means changes is worship. This explains why no commands are seen for co/unco in the OT scriptures, p204.
18. That Paul gives illustrations to support his views. Judge among yourselves by using illustrations of men and women's hair to compare. p212.
19. That a woman is to wear a veil for prayer and prophecy times is not indicative that it is allowed that a male can have long hair or a woman short hair. Nature teaches a man should have short hair and a woman long, p213. (Thus, Esaias must not believe that either are sinful, because it is nature teaching and not God commanding it. If not, then a woman must have long hair and a veil.)
20. Most women of all ages and places have practiced head covering. It could then be said he concludes that it is a result of Natural Law. Veiling has come naturally as a result of how God made Man. God is also NT commanding that which has come naturally, the veil. God thus double indicates the needed veil. It comes naturally and by command. p255.

Arguments Esaias uses against the iv:
1. Esaias says he thinks it would be using bad reasoning to believe that Paul would say that the Church did not have a custom/tradition of a veiling command. p14.
2. Says the iv starts out wrong and in the wrong place, because it ignores that the Bible-times churches were uniform in their beliefs. Uniformity of belief is the foundation stone of the early church. p18.
3. It is an error to disagree with Paul. Disagreeing with the vv is such an error. p27,42.
4. It is wrong to say 'no such custom' refers to a custom of veiling. Rather, the custom referrred to is the custom of being contentious. p27.
5. It is an error to say that Man's instinctive nature leads them to co/unco. p27.
6. It is absurd to believe other than the vv, p27.
7. The author of the iv is gaslighting. p27.
8. The reason to reject the iv is that its author is always going counter to scripture. p27.
9. The iv is wrong when its writer thinks that all the scriptural writers should all write about exactly the same things. p42.
10. He argues the reason why no cover-command is shown for A&E is because God also similarly never commanded Eve to have faith in Christ, not to cross dress, nor not to murder. p42.
11. Argues that God would not ask Eve the same thing asked of the Co's; ie to cover. p51.
12. Asks if I believe commands stop at Deut. p51.
13. Asks if commands must be given more than once in order to be valid. p51.
14. Esaias denies that A&E would be expected to co/unco. p57,137.
15. Esaias teaches a distinction between the OT and the NT people, that God did not expect the OT saints to co/unco. p57.
16. Esaias teaches that an OT priest could be covered while praying and prophesying, and not offend God with a covered head. p57.
17. Says the Bible does not speak of Man having instincts. p114,135,136.
18. Says: I cannot find any verse in the Bible that speaks of people having an "instinct to veil or not to veil". p135.
19. Says no one can actually define "instinct" in any authoritative way, since the Bible doesn't use the term at all. p135.
20. Uses a 1828 Websters Dictionary definition to define my 2024 use of the word 'instinct'. p136.
21. He defines instincts as a certain power of mind. p136.
22. Esaias practices straw-manning. Never has the iv stated that instincts lead Man to worship God. p136.
23. Says Ge3.16 can't be showing instincts, because many women are not seen following their instincts. p136.
24. Shows he does not understand the iv, by showing a defn of instincts I do not use. First 2 paragraphs of pt1. p136.
25. Says Man requires revelation to worship God. Yet elsewhere gives examples from nature and social judgments to support the vv. p136.
26. Says that because priests were required to use the miter proves the iv wrong. p141.
27. Says the natural conclusion of the iv is that a person can 'do what you want'. p145.
28. That reading another of my threads, John3 and Romans2, also shows me wrong. p145.
29. The iv is heresy, because others want to respect God's Order of Authority. p145.
30. Says: I discovered recently that if you put lipstick on a pig, it will absolutely strut down the modeling runway with all the pizazz it can muster. p196.
31. Says it is oxymoronic to believe that there is a difference between telling someone to do something and saying God commands someone to do something. p204.
32. Says: I notice Don is STILL going on about "where is the old testament command for the veil? I honestly do not know why that is still being raised." Esaias shows thus that he doesn't understand the iv. p204.
33. Says changes in covenants means changes is worship. p204.
34. Says: Your reasoning shows you believing that nothing can be commanded of anyone after A&E unless it was first commanded of A&E. p230 and also others previous.
35. Implies that using caution (when secular history is used for a proof of a doctrine) is ill-advised. p255,272.
36. Says vague soundbites are used to describe instincts. p255
37. Says that the co/unco doctrine is nowhere found in the old testament. p255.

CONTINUED IN PART 2/2

[donfriesen1]

COMPILATION.

PART 2/2

Questions of reason and points left unanswered by Esaias:
1. Esaias does not refute the idea that the first appearance of respect for God's order of authority, in the Beginning, had not come about by command.
2. He does not refute the idea that respect for God's order of authority is first seen in the Beginning by rationale thought and not by command.
3. He does not refute the fact that 'first things' of Genesis lay a foundation which all future thought must agree with/not contradict.
4. He does not refute the idea that respect for God's order of authority had first come about in the Beginning outside of any covenant and it therefore always exists independent of covenants.
5. No response to the thought that to describe a custom as 'contentious' is an inappropriate use of the word. p17.
6. He does not respond to the contention that He6 does not include co/unco as a first principle. This point challenges his view that co/unco was held uniformally as a tradition by all NT-time churches. p27,40.
7. Says Paul taught co/unco but doesn't convincingly show what co/unco was. p27,40.
8. He gives no response to the thought that Paul is the first and only Apostle to mention co/unco, other than saying all apostles believed the same thing. p42 and my commentary.
9. Esaias will fail to explain why he applies to a Bible believer, me, what is correctly applied to those who question the validity of God's Word - many modern Bible scholars. p42,44.
10. Offers little response to the doctrinal holes that are pointed out. Some points refer only to the ulv but most to the vv also. p47.
11. Does not challenge the thought that if a man's covered head dishonours God it is because the cover is hiding the image of God (in the flesh).
12. No response to the thought that Ro13 is showing Paul asking, not commanding, respect for the law of the land. p53.
13. Says Jews don't follow the OT, but follow the Talmud. p57.
14. The iv is not a logical explanation and is only a hypothesis. p57.
15. Does not respond to the allegation that the priest's miters do not cover the head by hanging down the head, which is the meaning of the word 'covered' Paul uses in v4. Therefore it is wrong to use as an example that shows a difference between the OT and the NT. p57,73.
16. Says Man requires revelation to worship God. Yet he gives examples from nature and social judgments instead of revelation to support views. p136.
17. No response to the fact that 4000 yrs of no-veiling-command OT history trumps 2000 yrs of veiling post-NT time history. p152.
18. Does not consider the fact when compiling the vv, that logically, if God commands women to veil in the NT, then he would have also commanded the same elsewhere, (ie, the OT) to be consistent with all women. p164.
19. v15 refers to a woman's hair being given her for a covering. Esaias doesn't reconcile this contradition of hair as the cover, with what he says is the veil command as a cover of v5,6; other than stating it is old. p170 point 5b.
20. Doesn't respond to the thought that Absalom had just cut his hair, which would have prevented it being long enough to get caught. page 88,89 of my commentary (see link in post1).
21. What does this comment of Esaias mean?: "Therefore, the glory of man being covered and hidden and thus NOT on display is REPRESENTED by the woman being covered when praying or prophesying." p178.
22. Doesn't refute that a NT tradition can't exist without coming about by a command. p182, 47 pt1.
23. How can an idea not understood be properly refuted? Esaias refutes what he doesn't understand. p182,47 pt2.
24. p182,47 pt3. Rather this than I'm seen as contradicting. I show a conclusion: that the ulv contradicts. I'm only pointing out the error of its conclusion.
25. p182, 47 pt5. My pt5 p47 applies to both the ulv and the vv.
26. He doesn't say a lot in response to the thought that 'God should not be seen exchanging a societal custom with a spiritual practise'. This thought also applies equally to the vv and the ulv. The ulv says the gk custom of long uncut hair (which the Co culture practised) is replaced with a command to have uncut long hair. p182 pt9.
27. Does not refute that the Gk grammar does not use the imperative mood of words he says are commands. p274,311.
28. He doesn't convincingly explain the absense of any OT command for the veil. p182 pt10.
29. Though not asked directly of Esaias, this following question still is needing an answer. What is seen in the Bible to show that nature teaches long hair on a woman and short hair on a man? To re-word this: Does the Bible show by the sociological nature of Man that it leads Man to co/unco? Is it the words of 1Co11 alone when it should be other verses as well? Isn't the question really answered by observation of people in society when it is sociological nature that is referred to? Doesn't this then say that it can be said that God asks for co/unco (by natural law) but doesn't command it? If nature teaches in the NT; v14,25; that Man should co/unco, then nature would teach the same in the OT. Why is a co/unco command/doctrine not seen in the 4000 yrs of OT history if nature teaches co/unco there?
30. Ask yourself this. If 1Co11 were not present, would we be having a convo about whether it is the veil or long hair as the woman's cover, considering what nature teaches? Should we not be seeing evidence from many scriptural places?
31. p204. Statements are made, and also conclusions from those statements. But Esaias omits to mention that different conclusions can be made from the same statements. He asserts only one thing but doesn't provide proof that this is the conclusion all should hold. Therefore, he says it is a command. He says v3 is the statement and v4,5 are conclusions from the statement but provides no proof here to corroborate.
32. Asserting that God has an order of authority does not establish that it has asked for symbols or even what those symbols are. Saying so is an independent assertion. p204.
33. Esaias affirms there was no norm of a Corinthian veiling custom that was supposedly being challenged. He specifies Ro/Gk religions, applying what are facts of their religious veiling practises to secular life. Does he mistakenly do so? p207.
34. He applies a rule of consistency, by saying that which applies to the Co also applies to Texans. Yet, he fails to see that a rule of consistency should be applied to all women of all time. He says inconsistently, that only NT women should have a covering and not the OT women. p208.
35. The lack of OT evidence for either the vv or the ulv should be seen saying that Paul would not conclude either of these when he was reading the OT. In light of the Book he loves and is willing to die for, Paul would not command what the OT had not. Esaias here replies what had been written to Amanah. p252.
36. Does not answer the question whether history would show the veil as the cover or long hair as the cover. Natural law has resulted in both. p252.
37. I'm accused of straw-manning when I say wrongly that the two examples (that the vv relies on, 'Judge among yourself' and 'does not even nature teach') are used by the vv as supports. While an error on my part it was not duplicitous purposeful straw-manning. p255.
38. He fails to adequately explain why Eve is not shown with a command to cover, when all women of all ages should be expected to symbolically show respect for God's order of authority. If one is, all should be.
39. What natural law provides for women of all ages, regardless of covenant time, for even those without religion, (both long hair, and apparently the veil which many women practice) he says is only commanded of NT women. Yet what God has illustrated in every age and class of women, is said by the vv only to be commanded for the NT times.

**************************

Esaias makes many good points, both for the vv and against the iv. But pulling all the facts and inconsistencies together shows the vv in fault. Any view created by God would be without inconsistencies of logic or needs to ignore scriptural principles, providing reasoned explanations to seeming holes. As seen above, many points and arguments of the iv have not been responsed to. This is a testimony to the iv's truth. Even a giant of AFF, Esaias, hasn't responded to all.

I invite iv-nay-sayers to do something similar as has been done in this post and in p305. Compile points of reason which disprove the iv. Just standing on the side-lines saying 'You're wrong' provides little argumentative weight against it.

[Esaias]

Don still seems to be wrong.

[Monterrey]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Don still seems to be wrong.

Definitely hard to read on a phone...

Just saying.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Definitely hard to read on a phone...

Just saying.

Verily. Need some spacing, chapters and verses. Gonna win the world through the power of correct forum argumentation it seems. I just popped in to see whats up. Guess Ill go back out in this thunderstorm and deal with real world issues.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Definitely hard to read on a phone...

Just saying.

Never having read an AFF post other than on a 15" monitor made me unaware of difficulties cell-only users had. Thx for making me aware. Hope the following helps. It is p334 repeated.

COMPILATION.

PART 1/2

What Esaias has said/would say in support of the vv:

1. He would say that 1Co11.5,6 shows Paul is commanding the veil.

2. That Paul is an apostle and uses his authority as such. Therefore,

whenever he speaks he commands.

3. He would say that the traditions of v2 refer to NT traditions of veiling, p18.

4. He says apostolics do what Paul teaches. Thus he concludes that being
apostolic by definition includes a correct covering. p18.

5. He would say that all the NT time churches were uniform in beliefs. They

held a tradition of veiling and it then must be concluded that Paul is teaching

the Co's the correct response to the tradition, p27.

6. He says that the Bible illustrates a distinction between OT and NT, using

mitered priest to show it, p57.

7. He uses the command to sing, which doesn't ask exactly how or what to

sing, as an example that God may command something (such as a woman's

cover) but doesn't always state exactly how so. Other examples are: 1 the

OT fringe a Jew was commanded. 2 God's request for Adam to name the

animals. Thus Esaias may be concluded to say that any head covering

symbol is acceptable. p95.

8. He shows that the the majority of Co's can be complimented for keeping

NT traditions of communion, yet individuals can be criticized for not keeping

it correctly. Therefore Paul can compliment the Co on keeping the tradition of

veiling, yet take the time to teach about it for those who do not, p131.

9. Says the NT veil-cover has nothing to do with culture. It is about a

command. But admits the OT veil was a custom, p132.

10. He says that the Bible illustrates a difference between the OT and the NT;

using glory to show it, p141.

11. He says new comers to the covering idea, when reading 1Co11, think it

teaches a veil, p141.

12. That Gk word definitions shows support, p170.

13. The cover of v15 is a different cover than the cover of v5,6. The cover of

v15 is a part of the iilustration from nature, p170.

14. He says the putting on of the veil is only for times of prayer and

prophecy, showing an action of compliance to what he says is commanded by

God. Those who think that long hair is the covering fail to perform an action

of compliance just for times of prayer and prophecy, p170.

15. The commands for co/unco in 1Co11 are only for the NT times, p192.

16. Truths are true everywhere, regardless of time or location, p204.

17. Changes in covenants means changes is worship. This explains why no

commands are seen for co/unco in the OT scriptures, p204.

18. That Paul gives illustrations to support his views. Judge among

yourselves by using illustrations of men and women's hair to compare. p212.

19. That a woman is to wear a veil for prayer and prophecy times is not

indicative that it is allowed that a male can have long hair or a woman short

hair. Nature teaches a man should have short hair and a woman long, p213.

(Thus, Esaias must not believe that either are sinful, because it is nature

teaching and not God commanding it. If not, then a woman must have long

hair and a veil.)

20. Most women of all ages and places have practiced head covering. It could

then be said he concludes that it is a result of Natural Law. Veiling has come

naturally as a result of how God made Man. God is also NT commanding that

which has come naturally, the veil. God thus double indicates the needed

veil. It comes naturally and by command. p255.

Arguments Esaias uses against the iv:

1. Esaias says he thinks it would be using bad reasoning to believe that Paul

would say that the Church did not have a custom/tradition of a veiling

command. p14.

2. Says the iv starts out wrong and in the wrong place, because it ignores

that the Bible-times churches were uniform in their beliefs. Uniformity of

belief is the foundation stone of the early church. p18.

3. It is an error to disagree with Paul. Disagreeing with the vv is such an

error. p27,42.

4. It is wrong to say 'no such custom' refers to a custom of veiling. Rather,

the custom referrred to is the custom of being contentious. p27.

5. It is an error to say that Man's instinctive nature leads them to co/unco.

p27.
6. It is absurd to believe other than the vv, p27.

7. The author of the iv is gaslighting. p27.

8. The reason to reject the iv is that its author is always going counter to

scripture. p27.

9. The iv is wrong when its writer thinks that all the scriptural writers should

all write about exactly the same things. p42.

10. He argues the reason why no cover-command is shown for A&E is

because God also similarly never commanded Eve to have faith in Christ, not

to cross dress, nor not to murder. p42.

11. Argues that God would not ask Eve the same thing asked of the Co's; ie

to cover. p51.

12. Asks if I believe commands stop at Deut. p51.

13. Asks if commands must be given more than once in order to be valid.

p51.

14. Esaias denies that A&E would be expected to co/unco. p57,137.

15. Esaias teaches a distinction between the OT and the NT people, that God

did not expect the OT saints to co/unco. p57.

16. Esaias teaches that an OT priest could be covered while praying and

prophesying, and not offend God with a covered head. p57.

17. Says the Bible does not speak of Man having instincts. p114,135,136.

18. Says: I cannot find any verse in the Bible that speaks of people having

an "instinct to veil or not to veil". p135.

19. Says no one can actually define "instinct" in any authoritative way, since

the Bible doesn't use the term at all. p135.

20. Uses a 1828 Websters Dictionary definition to define my 2024 use of the

word 'instinct'. p136.

21. He defines instincts as a certain power of mind. p136.

22. Esaias practices straw-manning. Never has the iv stated that instincts

lead Man to worship God. p136.

23. Says Ge3.16 can't be showing instincts, because many women are not

seen following their instincts. p136.

24. Shows he does not understand the iv, by showing a defn of instincts I do

not use. First 2 paragraphs of pt1. p136.

25. Says Man requires revelation to worship God. Yet elsewhere gives

examples from nature and social judgments to support the vv. p136.

26. Says that because priests were required to use the miter proves the iv

wrong. p141.

27. Says the natural conclusion of the iv is that a person can 'do what you

want'. p145.

28. That reading another of my threads, John3 and Romans2, also shows me

wrong. p145.

29. The iv is heresy, because others want to respect God's Order of Authority.

p145.

30. Says: I discovered recently that if you put lipstick on a pig, it will

absolutely strut down the modeling runway with all the pizazz it can muster.

p196.

31. Says it is oxymoronic to believe that there is a difference between telling

someone to do something and saying God commands someone to do

something. p204.

32. Says: I notice Don is STILL going on about "where is the old testament

command for the veil? I honestly do not know why that is still being raised."

Esaias shows thus that he doesn't understand the iv. p204.

33. Says changes in covenants means changes is worship. p204.

34. Says: Your reasoning shows you believing that nothing can be

commanded of anyone after A&E unless it was first commanded of A&E. p230

and also others previous.

35. Implies that using caution (when secular history is used for a proof of a

doctrine) is ill-advised. p255,272.

36. Says vague soundbites are used to describe instincts. p255

37. Says that the co/unco doctrine is nowhere found in the old testament.

p255.

CONTINUED IN PART 2/2

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Definitely hard to read on a phone...

Just saying.

Here is p335 repeated.

COMPILATION.

PART 2/2

Questions of reason and points left unanswered by Esaias:

1. Esaias does not refute the idea that the first appearance of respect for

God's order of authority, in the Beginning, had not come about by command.

2. He does not refute the idea that respect for God's order of authority is first

seen in the Beginning by rationale thought and not by command.

3. He does not refute the fact that 'first things' of Genesis lay a foundation

which all future thought must agree with/not contradict.

4. He does not refute the idea that respect for God's order of authority had

first come about in the Beginning outside of any covenant and it therefore

always exists independent of covenants.

5. No response to the thought that to describe a custom as 'contentious' is

an inappropriate use of the word. p17.

6. He does not respond to the contention that He6 does not include co/unco

as a first principle. This point challenges his view that co/unco was held

uniformally as a tradition by all NT-time churches. p27,40.

7. Says Paul taught co/unco but doesn't convincingly show what co/unco

was. p27,40.

8. He gives no response to the thought that Paul is the first and only Apostle

to mention co/unco, other than saying all apostles believed the same thing.

p42 and my commentary.

9. Esaias will fail to explain why he applies to a Bible believer, me, what is

correctly applied to those who question the validity of God's Word - many

modern Bible scholars. p42,44.

10. Offers little response to the doctrinal holes that are pointed out. Some

points refer only to the ulv but most to the vv also. p47.

11. Does not challenge the thought that if a man's covered head dishonours

God it is because the cover is hiding the image of God (in the flesh).

12. No response to the thought that Ro13 is showing Paul asking, not

commanding, respect for the law of the land. p53.

13. Says Jews don't follow the OT, but follow the Talmud. p57.

14. The iv is not a logical explanation and is only a hypothesis. p57.

15. Does not respond to the allegation that the priest's miters do not cover

the head by hanging down the head, which is the meaning of the word

'covered' Paul uses in v4. Therefore it is wrong to use as an example that

shows a difference between the OT and the NT. p57,73.

16. Says Man requires revelation to worship God. Yet he gives examples from

nature and social judgments instead of revelation to support views. p136.

17. No response to the fact that 4000 yrs of no-veiling-command OT history

trumps 2000 yrs of veiling post-NT time history. p152.

18. Does not consider the fact when compiling the vv, that logically, if God

commands women to veil in the NT, then he would have also commanded the

same elsewhere, (ie, the OT) to be consistent with all women. p164.

19. v15 refers to a woman's hair being given her for a covering. Esaias

doesn't reconcile this contradition of hair as the cover, with what he says is

the veil command as a cover of v5,6; other than stating it is old. p170 point

5b.

20. Doesn't respond to the thought that Absalom had just cut his hair, which

would have prevented it being long enough to get caught. page 88,89 of my

commentary (see link in post1).

21. What does this comment of Esaias mean?: "Therefore, the glory of man

being covered and hidden and thus NOT on display is REPRESENTED by the

woman being covered when praying or prophesying." p178.

22. Doesn't refute that a NT tradition can't exist without coming about by a

command. p182, 47 pt1.

23. How can an idea not understood be properly refuted? Esaias refutes what

he doesn't understand. p182,47 pt2.

24. p182,47 pt3. Rather this than I'm seen as contradicting. I show a

conclusion: that the ulv contradicts. I'm only pointing out the error of its

conclusion.

25. p182, 47 pt5. My pt5 p47 applies to both the ulv and the vv.

26. He doesn't say a lot in response to the thought that 'God should not be

seen exchanging a societal custom with a spiritual practise'. This thought also

applies equally to the vv and the ulv. The ulv says the gk custom of long

uncut hair (which the Co culture practised) is replaced with a command to

have uncut long hair. p182 pt9.

27. Does not refute that the Gk grammar does not use the imperative mood

of words he says are commands. p274,311.

28. He doesn't convincingly explain the absense of any OT command for the

veil. p182 pt10.

29. Though not asked directly of Esaias, this following question still is

needing an answer. What is seen in the Bible to show that nature teaches

long hair on a woman and short hair on a man? To re-word this: Does the

Bible show by the sociological nature of Man that it leads Man to co/unco? Is

it the words of 1Co11 alone when it should be other verses as well? Isn't the

question really answered by observation of people in society when it is

sociological nature that is referred to? Doesn't this then say that it can be

said that God asks for co/unco (by natural law) but doesn't command it? If

nature teaches in the NT; v14,25; that Man should co/unco, then nature

would teach the same in the OT. Why is a co/unco command/doctrine not

seen in the 4000 yrs of OT history if nature teaches co/unco there?

30. Ask yourself this. If 1Co11 were not present, would we be having a convo

about whether it is the veil or long hair as the woman's cover, considering

what nature teaches? Should we not be seeing evidence from many scriptural

places?

31. p204. Statements are made, and also conclusions from those

statements. But Esaias omits to mention that different conclusions can be

made from the same statements. He asserts only one thing but doesn't

provide proof that this is the conclusion all should hold. Therefore, he says it

is a command. He says v3 is the statement and v4,5 are conclusions from

the statement but provides no proof here to corroborate.

32. Asserting that God has an order of authority does not establish that it

has asked for symbols or even what those symbols are. Saying so is an

independent assertion. p204.

33. Esaias affirms there was no norm of a Corinthian veiling custom that was

supposedly being challenged. He specifies Ro/Gk religions, applying what are

facts of their religious veiling practises to secular life. Does he mistakenly do

so? p207.

34. He applies a rule of consistency, by saying that which applies to the Co

also applies to Texans. Yet, he fails to see that a rule of consistency should

be applied to all women of all time. He says inconsistently, that only NT

women should have a covering and not the OT women. p208.

35. The lack of OT evidence for either the vv or the ulv should be seen saying

that Paul would not conclude either of these when he was reading the OT. In

light of the Book he loves and is willing to die for, Paul would not command

what the OT had not. Esaias here replies what had been written to Amanah.

p252.

36. Does not answer the question whether history would show the veil as the

cover or long hair as the cover. Natural law has resulted in both. p252.

37. I'm accused of straw-manning when I say wrongly that the two examples

(that the vv relies on, 'Judge among yourself' and 'does not even nature

teach') are used by the vv as supports. While an error on my part it was not

duplicitous purposeful straw-manning. p255.

38. He fails to adequately explain why Eve is not shown with a command to

cover, when all women of all ages should be expected to symbolically show

respect for God's order of authority. If one is, all should be.

39. What natural law provides for women of all ages, regardless of covenant

time, for even those without religion, (both long hair, and apparently the veil

which many women practice) he says is only commanded of NT women. Yet

what God has illustrated in every age and class of women, is said by the vv

only to be commanded for the NT times.

**************************

Esaias makes many good points, both for the vv and against the iv. But

pulling all the facts and inconsistencies together shows the vv in fault. Any

view created by God would be without inconsistencies of logic or needs to

ignore scriptural principles, providing reasoned explanations to seeming

holes. As seen above, many points and arguments of the iv have not been

responsed to. This is a testimony to the iv's truth. Even a giant of AFF,

Esaias, hasn't responded to all.


I invite iv-nay-sayers to do something similar as has been done in this post

and in p305. Compile points of reason which disprove the iv. Just standing on

the side-lines saying 'You're wrong' provides little argumentative weight

against it.