|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 10, 2008 15:26:54 GMT -5
You just watched me admit gnosticism a couple weeks ago. Who is it that won't persuade or be persuaded?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 10, 2008 22:35:19 GMT -5
You just watched me admit gnosticism a couple weeks ago. Who is it that won't persuade or be persuaded? Would you be persusaded if someone was telling you that a custome is actualy a law?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 11, 2008 16:56:34 GMT -5
Logic: Would you be persuaded if someone was telling you that a custom is actually a law?First. Why would I not be persuaded? Only if they were wrong. If I thought something was a custom and found out it was a law, of course I would be persuaded. Though there is an expression "The man persuaded against his will, will keep the same opinion still." But what do our wills have to do with what is true? So YES. Absolutely. If you showed me something that I thought was an optional custom was actually a command I would be obligated to circumcise my will, to throw it away, to obey the command. Here is an example of something many people treat as if it were a custom: 1Co 14:34 Let your women be silent in the assemblies,How many people obey this now? I have never been to an assembly where they obey this. Maybe they think it is just an old fashioned custom? for it is not allowed to them to speak, but to be in subjection,That's not very feminist, enlightened, and modern! Maybe it's just old-fashioned silliness? as also the Law says.Well it's a good thing Jesus came to destroy the law! Otherwise our short-haired, pants-wearing wives might give us a good lashing with their tongues for teaching them to obey this! 1Co 14:35 But if they desire to learn anything, let them question their husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in an assembly.Just like it's a shame for them to pray or prophesy unveiled. If they won't keep silent in the assembly, make them stay home or in the baby room. If they won't wear the veil, chop off their hair. If they don't want their hair shaved off then let them be veiled. 1Co 14:36 Or did the Word of God go out from you? Or did it reach only to you?This is THE WORD OF GOD. This is what GOD'S LAW says. This is what Paul the teacher of the gentile nations appointed by the Lord Jesus says. 1Co 14:37 If anyone thinks to be a prophet, or a spiritual one, let him recognize the things I write to you, that they are a command of the Lord. 1Co 14:38 But if any be ignorant, let him be ignorant.A command of the Lord. This is the same letter that instructs them to properly use veiling so they will not dishonor Christ Jesus and not dishonor their husbands and fathers. The transgression of Adam was through him exalting the fickle wishes of his wife above the command of God. Should a man decide for himself that this is a mere custom? Should a man wait until he feels convicted to take it seriously? Isn't that how calvinists "get saved"? Wouldn't a man naturally feel convicted AFTER he took it seriously? Second. What you can see from the tables below is that the word custom is not suitable for veiling. The word paradosis (meaning ordinance, tradition, law) is the suitable word. Veiling is an ordinance, tradition, law that ought, must, should (opheilo) be held, kept, retained (kateccho). It is not a sunetheia (a custom or usage). English | Strong # | Greek & Definition | Notes | | | Here are some of the words that Paul uses about the things he has taught them. | | ordinances | G3862 | paradosis: transmission, that is, (concretely) a precept; specifically the Jewish traditionary law: - ordinance, tradition. | The verbal and written traditions of the apostles. See examples below. | keep | G2722 | katecho: to hold down (fast), in various applications (literally or figuratively): - have, hold (fast), keep (in memory), let, X make toward, possess, retain, seize on, stay, take, withhold. | "keep the ordinances" This is source of the word 'catechism'. kata (down) + echo (hold), poetically "echoing down the halls of history" | | | Here is a word he uses to teach veling. | | ought | G3784 | opheilo; opheileo: to owe [money]; figuratively to be under obligation (ought, must, should); morally to fail in duty: - behove, be bound, (be) debt (-or), (be) due (-ty), be guilty (indebted), (must) need (-s), ought, owe, should. | Do it. | | | Here is a word he would use to describe veiling. | | comely | G4241 | prepo: Apparently a primary verb; to tower up (be conspicuous), that is, (by implication) to be suitable or proper (third person singular present indicative, often used impersonally, it is fit or right): - become, comely. | Fitting. It does not mean subjective visual appeal. Comely = Right. Not comely = Wrong. | | | Here are some words Paul uses to teach that men should not veil themselves. | | indeed ought not | G3303 G3784 G3756 | men (μέν): A primary particle; properly indicative of affirmation or concession (in fact); usually followed by a contrasted clause with G1161 (this one, the former, etc.: - even, indeed, so, some, truly, verily. Often compounded with other particles in an intensive or asseverative sense.
opheilo; opheileo: to owe (pecuniarily); figuratively to be under obligation (ought, must, should); morally to fail in duty: - behove, be bound, (be) debt (-or), (be) due (-ty), be guilty (indebted), (must) need (-s), ought, owe, should.
ou: A primary word; the absolutely negative (compare G3361) adverb; no or not | It is forbidden. | | | Here are some words he uses to describe a man wearing a veil or having long hair. | | dishonoureth | G2617 | kataischuno: to shame down, that is, disgrace or (by implication) put to the blush: - confound, dishonour, (be a-, make a-) shame (-d). | Not something a christian man wants to do to the Lord Jesus, nor a christian woman to her father, husband, etc. | shame | G819 | atimia: infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile. | Wrong. | | | Here is a word he suggests to describe a woman having her hair chopped off. | | shame | G149 | aischron: a shameful thing, that is, indecorum: - shame. | in my town: a lesbian | | | Here are some words he uses to describe a woman unveiled. | | dishonoureth | G2617 | kataischuno: to shame down, that is, disgrace or (by implication) put to the blush: - confound, dishonour, (be a-, make a-) shame (-d). | This is definitely not something a christian man wants to do to the Lord Jesus, nor a christian woman to her father, husband, etc. | custom | G4914 | sunetheia: mutual habituation, that is, usage: - custom. | No implication of law or necessity. A habit. |
Third. For a women to pray or prophesy unveiled is kataischuno. It is disgraceful, causing to blush, dishonorable, confounding. Let her be shaved first, Paul says. Behold the Rechabites of our time. Jer 35:5 And I set bowls and cups full of wine before the sons of the house of the Rechabites. And I said to them, Drink wine. [/color] Fourth. Shouldn't a man be concerned first with whether he himself is persuaded then afterward with whether others are persuaded? 2Th 2:15 So, then, brothers, stand firm and strongly hold the teachings (paradosis) you were taught, whether by word or by our letter.
2Th 3:6 And we enjoin you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to draw yourselves back from every brother walking in a disorderly way, and not according to the teaching (paradosis) which you received from us. 2Th 3:7 For you yourselves know how it is right to act like us, because we were not disorderly among you;
2Th 3:14 But if anyone does not obey our Word through the letter, mark that one, and do not associate with him, that he be shamed. 2Th 3:15 But do not count him as one hostile, but warn him as a brother. 2Th 3:16 And may the Lord of peace Himself continually give peace to you in every way. The Lord be with all of you.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 11, 2008 16:59:03 GMT -5
AH! Sorry about the women's clothing ads!
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 11, 2008 19:18:07 GMT -5
who has bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been openly set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received you the Spirit by the works of the law (wearing a veil), or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are you now made perfect by the flesh (by wearing a veil)? Have you suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministers to you the Spirit, and works miracles among you, does he it by the works of the law (wearing a veil), or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know you therefore that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In you shall all nations be blessed. So then they who are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continues not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.(that if you must wear a veil you must obey every letter of the law) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that does them shall live in them. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law...
Just because one is not abiding by the tradition of the veli, he is not sinning.
[glow=red,2,300]Learn the diference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.[/glow]
The difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law is that the letter relates to the outward action; the spirit relates to the motive or intention of the heart and from which the act should proceed.
The spirit of the law requires impartial goodwill or benevolence, and is all expressed in one word--love. The letter of the law requires strict adherence to every precept, it is all expressed in one word--obey.
An example, the letter of the law says, "Do not commit murder!" but the spirit of the law says, ''anyone who is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to Judgment.'' (Matthew 5:21-22) The spirit requires that certain conditions to be examined in their proper place.
The letter of the law is unyielding and sentences guilty all violators of its precepts, without regard to purpose. Just as the speed limit is 55 mph and one exceeds the limit, the law says, ''guilty''. The spirit of the law sees the purpose of the excess speed for an emergency and says, ''keep speeding until purpose is met. Furthermore, when speeding for the purpose of an emergency, the spirit of the law is not broken, but fulfilled.
The spirit of the veil is humility, submission and honor. The letter of the veil say to ware it just because the law is written.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 11, 2008 19:58:21 GMT -5
I'm not talking about salvation. You sound like you think I'm stupid.
On a scale of 1 to 10 how seriously do you take me?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 11, 2008 21:09:36 GMT -5
I'm not talking about salvation. It doesn't have to be about salvation. Your trying to put me or anybody under law, which I refuse to be and don't want anyone else to be also, not even you. It sounds as though your saying that if the church does not abide strictly to the letter of 1Corinth 11 they are sinning against God. All I'm trying to tell you that the church has always fullfilled the spirit of the tradition/custom of the veil, and that is all that matters. What does God care if a woman is veiled, but in her heart is irreverence for her husband? What does a husband care if a woman is veiled, but in her heart she dishonors him? Secondly: That middle video, the man said that if hos life was thretend, he would shave his beard. That tells every one, it is not a conviction, but only a preference. A man will die for a conviction, but not a preference. Would you have your wife ware a veil to her death? If not, then it is only a preference. Do you supose that God cares more of the outward veil of the head, or the spirit of the veil from the heart? I seriously do not intend that. 10. However, how learned are you in the doctrines of theology? I've been in study for about 20 years now. Do you think I have not come up against this chapter?I've prayed about all my studies and come up in the truth. I tell you that if I saw this to be kept by the letter, I would indeed and in truth. This is closly related to circumcision. Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29: But he is a Jew, who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.For he is not a christian, who is one outwardly; neither is that veiling, which is outward on the flesh: He is a christian who is one inwardly; and the law/tradition/custom of the veil is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.... Please, do not take any offence from me. I am speak in these forums in all due respect. Unless ovecorse, your a calvy ;D Just kidding.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 12, 2008 1:30:55 GMT -5
Hello my friend, I'm not upset.
We've got a problem here though: You're trying to put me or anybody under law... That is absolutely ridiculous. Literally - I chuckled a couple times.
It sounds as though your saying that if the church does not abide strictly to the letter of 1Corinth 11 they are sinning against God. "Dishonors Christ and the image and glory of God" is how Paul put it. Your problem is with Paul, not me. I'm not twisting his writings.
All I'm trying to tell you that the church has always fulfilled the spirit of the tradition/custom of the veil, and that is all that matters. That sounds like a gnostic method of interpretation. It's twisting the passage to say that it teaches the spirit of the veil and not the letter. It's not the Torah, it's the apostle Paul. The "letter" and the spirit agree. The letter and spirit say to honor Christ and the image and glory of God BY properly using the veil. If it was as you say Paul would have addressed it in the same way that meat and veggies was addressed or holy days, etc. Paul was well aware of the difference between the letter and the spirit. The Holy Spirit was well aware that there could come a time when certain cultures discarded the veil. Both Paul and the Spirit in him would have clearly shown in the passage that it was only a concession based on world culture. Address the passage itself. If you can show from the passage that it was a mere cultural consideration and you can debunk my entire understanding of it then I'm wrong. You know I'll admit it if I'm wrong. You've seen me do it. Why on earth would I be spending so much time with you on this if I had been presented evidence that I was wrong?! You think I just want some guy in Iowa to teach his wife about an empty custom so I can sleep sound at night! haha! That wouldn't make much sense would it. No. You are my friend and I am willing to do whatever I have to, as long as you are willing to hear me, to share with you what I believe to be true. Look at the state of the so-called churches in this country! Do you seriously expect that two men living hundreds of miles apart are going to immediately agree on every doctrine and ordinance? It sure could happen but I'm not surprised if it doesn't! It never even occurred to me, for instance, to question the sinful flesh thing! But if we are willing to hear the truth then God will not hide it from us. I could've gone to my grave thinking I had an excuse for my sin in my nature but God didn't let that happen! I thank Him for that! Now if I'm preaching something wrong I'll be glad to find out. So far in this discussion I've been more and more convinced that you misunderstand me entirely and the passage really says what I thought it said. It's actually been very encouraging for me as far as my understanding of this tradition. However for your sake I am in pain because I desire to share that encouragement with you but you think I am trying to make you a slave! A slave to laws!
What does God care if a woman is veiled, but in her heart is irreverence for her husband? What does a husband care if a woman is veiled, but in her heart she dishonors him? I think you've inadvertently created a straw man here by assuming a false dilemma. You're making me work my logic textbook pretty hard. The straw man is that I am advocating against the spirit of the law. I am not doing that. All I've been doing is promoting obedience to an ordinance Paul taught. The false dilemma you've assumed is that promoting outward obedience is somehow contrary or neglectful of the spirit of obedience, the inner motive. In effect you are saying someone can either strictly adhere to veiling OR they can hold the inner motive that Paul gives for veiling (the spirit of veiling). That is a false dilemma. Strict adherence to the tradition does not in any way negate the spirit or motive of the tradition. Instead it is the natural fruit of the motive. That it how Paul presents it. He basically says: You should obey this to the letter BECAUSE of the spiritual motive. Paul tells them what the proper reaction to the "spirit" of the ordinance is: the ordinance itself! This is not like the Pharisees who accused Jesus of breaking Sabbath when he healed a man on the Sabbath. They were directly violating the spirit of the law which itself was written in their law. Therefore He held them accountable for disobedience. If the general use of the veil or head-covering was in direct violation to God's law then amish, mennonites, muslims, etc. would all be guilty of transgressing the spirit of God's law. They are not at all guilty on account of making general use of veiling. If a woman refused to run into a burning house to save her child because it might burn her veil THEN she would following the letter of an ordinance at the expense of obeying the weightier matters of God's law.
Look what the Lord Jesus said to the Pharisees: Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.
Why should they have to tithe herbs? Isn't that just the letter of the law? There's nothing wrong with the letter of the law. Also the letter of the law does not usually come into contradiction with the spirit of the law. The general use of the veil does NOT violate the law of love. Otherwise amish, mennonites, muslims, women with cancer, nuns, etc. are all guilty of violating the law of love because of their veils! That would be a ridiculous accusation to make against them. Their are plenty of christian women who are wearing veils without being a nun or muslim or amish. People being unfamiliar with veiling are probably curious and ask them why they wear it. They might wonder if they belong to this or that group. I don't think anyone is being HARMED by their veiling themselves though. Just like the man in the third youtube video was saying that if a woman is walking around half naked no one speaks up! So what is the harm of wearing the veil? Obviously we should speak up when women are half naked but that is not the point. The distinction between the letter of the ordinance of veiling and the spirit of the ordinance of veiling creates a false dilemma because only in very rare situations would the ordinance itself come into conflict with God's law of love, like the burning house example I mentioned above.
The straw man occurs when you bring up these ideas: "but in her heart is irreverence for her husband" "but in her heart she dishonors him?" Not once did I suggest that a woman should be those ways. I never promoted obedience to what Paul said at the expense of the inner motive. I've promoted the obedience AND the inner motive. I brought in examples of people who obey the same thing with even weaker motives than the epistle of Paul. They are like the sons of the Rechabites therefore because they have obeyed a custom of ordinary men when we have disobeyed a tradition from the Holy Spirit of God. Therefore they put us to shame in that matter, even though they are not "God's chosen people" like the american churches think they are.
Would you have your wife wear a veil to her death? I would rather die than dishonor Christ by praying with my head covered. If I was confronted in some kind of martyrdom situation where men were giving me an ultimatum of death or disobedience, I know for a fact that death would be the right choice. If I was a woman and my veil was taken from me would that mean that I could not pray? I don't think so. The veil is for prayer and not prayer for the veil. If there was a godly woman and she had a choice in the matter then she would rather die than dishonor her husband. But Paul commands the veil for prayer and prophesy. The obvious result is that keeping the veil on in general becomes much more practical, otherwise it must be redone every time a women wishes to pray. It is also preferable to the women who follow the tradition to maintain the veil for the sake of modesty and to continue in reverence even when not praying. On top of that the testimony of history shows that wearing the veil has been the common usage apart from prayer. Paul himself uses the example of nature saying that a woman's long hair is given her as a covering which shows us that she ought to be veiled. His specific teaching was regarding times of prayer because that would be the LAST time you would want to go against the example of nature. However for the sake of modesty, and the passage may confirm this itself, it remains proper for the woman to remain covered in general. Let's not get hung up on that while not in agreement on the veil for times of prayer though. If a woman starts wearing it when she's praying to God then we could talk about the rest of the time.
Do you suppose that God cares more of the outward veil of the head, or the spirit of the veil from the heart? Here's the false dilemma and straw man again. It does not have to be one or the other nor am I promoting one at the expense of the other.
Quote: ...how learned are you in the doctrines of theology? I've been in study for about 20 years now. Well how many years of study would be a satisfactory answer? If I've been studying for 21 years will you take me more seriously? If I've been studying for 21 days will you take me less seriously? What is the point of asking me how "learned" I am in "doctrines of theology"? Doctrines of theology just means the bible. I don't even use the word theology cause it makes knowing God sound like an academic science. I don't call learning about you and your ways "Darinology". That's because it would sound impersonal and degrading. But that's a personal matter. I don't condemn people for using the word, maybe in the future I'll speak up about it more. My point is what is your point in asking me that?
Do you think I have not come up against this chapter? My impression or guess was that you came across it and studied it until you came across the cultural relativism misinterpretation and did not sufficiently examine the passage itself to rightly discern the truth of that interpretation. In other words I didn't get the impression that you had given it much thought or taken it very seriously but that was based on the fact that you were repeating yourself in your argument against my position without introducing any propositions that were not immediately inferred in your argument to begin with. It didn't and doesn't seem that the argument has any convincing points. However, I could be wrong but I must assume that I understand correctly unless I find that I have not been thorough in my studying or find that someone else understands it better than I do.
I've prayed about all my studies and come up in the truth. Is it possible then that God is answering your prayer through this discussion? Maybe your initial understanding is like Ishmael and now you have Isaac. What do you think, is that possible?
I tell you that if I saw this to be kept by the letter, I would indeed and in truth. I'm grateful to God in my heart for your obedient spirit and I hope that my way of presenting this does not get in the way of the message itself.
For he is not a christian, who is one outwardly; neither is that veiling, which is outward on the flesh: He is a christian who is one inwardly; and the law/tradition/custom of the veil is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.... WHAT?! Are you trying to say that Muslims are not christian?! haha, just kidding.
Here's another example of the error: For he is not a christian, who is one outwardly; neither is that baptism and the Lord's supper and giving to the poor, which is outward on the flesh: He is a christian who is one inwardly; and the law/tradition/custom of the baptism and the Lord's supper and giving to the poor is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter....
If you interpret like a gnostic you can do all kinds of weird things with very simple passages. We can't make that kind of distinction between the letter and spirit of the law UNLESS the spirit of the law is truly being violated by adherence to the letter. Like I said, that's obviously not the case with women who wear veils, therefore the separation of letter and spirit is unjustifiable.
I'm not offended at all. I appreciate that you are willing to continue discussing it. I did not like using stronger questions like I did but it seemed like you were going to walk away from sorting this out. Peace my friend!
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 12, 2008 16:51:26 GMT -5
Hello my friend, I'm not upset. Good!!! Letter of the "law" of the veil is just to ware it with nothing else in the heart, but obedience. Spirit of the "law" of the veil is to honor Christ and the image and glory of God & to cover the glory of man. What is the need for the letter if the spirit is resent? 1Tim 1:9 Knowing this, that (the letter of) the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave traders, for liars, for perjurers, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;The Righteous do not need the letter of the law if we have & obey the spirit of them which is love. Do you keep Saturday as the Sabbath? No, we have the spirit if the Sabbath, which Christ. We don't even need to take Sunday of. Tell me why we need to keep the letter of the law of the veil if the spirit is present? My point is in the question, what is the use of the letter for an already righteous person when the spirit is present? My point was that it ain't wrong to break the letter by not doing it if the spirit is being accomplished, but it is always wrong if one breaks the spirit of the law with only doing the letter. Jesus broke the letter of the law of the Sabbath but not the spirit of it, but the Pharisees broke the spirit while keeping the letter. What if you actually dishonor God with your prayer? Your uncovered head becomes covered. However, if you covering your head (because it's cold out & you have a hood on) as you are honoring God in your prayer, then your head becomes uncovered. If your wondering how anyone could dishonor God while praying, I would say someone with bad doctrine &/or theology, & praying according to that. My point was that God looks at the heart, which is what matters. The letter is for the use of showing what the spirit desires inwardly. If one is submitting to the desire of the spirit which the law shows, the outward my be dismissed. However, if one must adhere to one letter of the law, he must hold to all completely & consistently without breaking any of the others. No man is justified by the letter of the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. The law is not of faith: but, The man that does the law shall live in them. This "justification" which I'm talking about is not that of salvation, but of favor with God in respect to obedience of the heart. I say that the letter of the law for the veil can be done away with by faith that one is still obeying the law in their heart which is what the spirit of the law is about. LOL!!! That's a good one!!! The point was for no other reason, but to lead you to the other; "Do you think I have not come up against this chapter?" I studied it until I came across the difference between the spirit & the letter of it. The cultural relativism part may be wrong, but as long as the spirit of the Veil is kept, there is no need for the letter with a righteous man. It's confirming my conviction. Thanx. What is the spirit of the baptism and the Lord's supper and giving to the poor? Baptism is representative of our death and resurrection in Christ, not by the removing of outward filth of the flesh but by providing us with a good and clear conscience (inward cleanness and peace) before God through the [death and] resurrection of Jesus Christ 1Peter 3:21. The Lord's supper is in remembrance (Luke 22:19, 1Corinth 11:24) This is a bold thing to do because the "Supper of the Passover" was to be done in remembrance of being freed from Egypt. These are not laws, but truly customs & pleasures to observe. The veil is a burden which is not needed to fulfill the spirit of which it represents. I'm not doing what the Gnostics did. It is the case if she dishonors he husband & is glorifying man over God by her attitude and speech, the veil is meaningless. However, if she does the opposite, what is the need of the veil? The case of the Sabbath is that the Pharisees were holding to the letter and not considering the reason for the Sabbath. Its not that they had to keep the Sabbath as they did, but they kept it to the point of making it a burden. When the law becomes a burden, the spirit becomes the liberty. How do you think we get by not observing the Sabbath which is Saturday? If it is a burden to ware a veil, the spirit gives liberty to the woman only if she honors her husband and shows humility. I know that I can not stand anything to be touching my face, it drives be batty, I can not concentrate. If that is the same for a woman, I would tell her to remove her veil out of mercy, as long as she fulfills the spirit. If the veil offends some one, I would have it removed, as long as she fulfills the spirit. I don't want my wife to ware a veil because it doesn’t matter if she does or not as long as she fulfills the spirit. How is the separation of letter and spirit of the veil is unjustifiable if the woman honors her husband and is covering the glory of man (humility)? How is the separation of letter and spirit of the veil is unjustifiable if the man is revealing the glory of God and honoring God with his life? What does the letter matter to a righteous man if the spirit is being fulfilled by him? I wish we could just hook up some data cables to our minds between us to get out thoughts across perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 12, 2008 22:06:10 GMT -5
This is what it sounds like you're saying:
Christian veiling is a symbolic thing. Some symbolic things are optional. Therefore christian veiling is optional.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 12, 2008 22:55:36 GMT -5
"When the law becomes a burden" "If it is a burden to wear a veil" "The veil is a burden" | Mat 11:30 My burden is light 2Co 11:9 I was not a burden to anyone 2Co 12:13 I myself did not burden you 2Co 12:14 I will not burden you 2Co 12:16 I did not burden you 1Th 2:9 not to put a burden on any one of you 2Th 3:8 in order not to burden anyone of you 1Ti 5:16 do not burden the assembly Rev 2:24 I am not casting another burden on you |
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 13, 2008 0:24:14 GMT -5
This is what it sounds like you're saying: Christian veiling is a symbolic thing. Some symbolic things are optional. Therefore christian veiling is optional. First of all, it is true that the veil is symbolic as verses 3&4 show. second, it is true, the veil is optional. It is not optional if one can not fulfill the spirit withou the letter, but since the spirit can be fulfilled without the letter, the letter is optional. As I shown, the letter is not for the righteous, but for the unrighteous (1Tim 1:9)
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 3:53:24 GMT -5
1) True or False. What you call "the spirit of veiling" is distinguishable from veiling itself.
2) True or False. "The spirit of veiling" is mandatory.
3) True or False. The mandatory nature of "the spirit of veiling" is apparent in 1Cor 11:1-16.
4) True or False. Something that requires consent and has a mandatory nature is a command.
5) True or False. "The spirit of veiling" is commanded in 1Cor 11:1-16.
6) True or False. Veiling is commanded in 1Cor 11:1-16.
7) True or False. Obedience to "the spirit of veiling" makes veiling optional.
8) True or False. Both veiling and "the spirit of veiling" are commanded in 1Cor 11:1-16.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 13, 2008 12:18:40 GMT -5
1) True What you call "the spirit of veiling" is distinguishable from veiling itself. The veiling itself is the letter, they are distinguishable in this way: The letter relates to the outward action; the spirit relates to the motive or intention of the heart and from which the act should proceed. The spirit of the law requires you to honor the man and cover the glory of him while revealing the Glory of God; it is all expressed in one word--love.
The letter of the law requires strict adherence, it is all expressed in one word--obey with out the regard of the motive of ones heart. The letter of the law says, "Ware the veil, it don't matter what your attitude is toward your husband, just ware it as your supposed to!" However, the spirit of the law says, "Honor your husband from your heart, be in the attitude of humility (cover the glory of man), and glorify God in doing all this. The spirit requires that certain conditions to be examined in their proper place.
The letter of the law is unyielding and sentences guilty all violators of its command, without regard to purpose. Just as the law says, “Ware the veil” & one does not ware a veil, the law says, ''guilty'', even though the heart is in the right attitude.
The spirit of the law sees the purpose of the veil says, ''the veil is not needed as long as you are honoring your husband from your heart, be in the attitude of humility, and Glorify God in doing all this. AND As long as you are not disregarding the set standards of propriety of the culture, the veil is not needed and the spirit of the law is not broken, but fulfilled
2) True "The spirit of veiling" is mandatory.
3) True The mandatory nature of "the spirit of veiling" is apparent in 1Cor 11:1-16.
4) True Something that requires consent and has a mandatory nature is a command.
5) True "The spirit of veiling" is commanded in 1Cor 11:1-16.
6) True Veiling is commanded in 1Cor 11:1-16. I still see it as a cultural issue. This is evident because it is not in every culture.
7) True Obedience to "the spirit of veiling" makes veiling optional. only if the culture agrees
8) True Both veiling and "the spirit of veiling" are commanded in 1Cor 11:1-16. -----------------------------
Tell me, why should one ware the veil if the spirit is being fullfiled?
If you say, "because it is commanded". Then you must follow every single ordinance of the entire LETTER of the law strictly, consistantly, with out fail for "the man that does them shall live in them" (Rom 10:5, Gal 3:12); "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (Jas 2:10).
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 13:22:39 GMT -5
Here are your definitions of veiling and "the spirit of veiling." veiling | "the spirit of veiling" | 1) Use the veil without regard for the motive of ones heart.
2) Wear the veil even if you are not honoring your husband from your heart, aren't in the attitude of humility, and don't glorify God.
3) Your can have the right attitude but not wear the veil, which makes you guilty. | 1) Honor your husband from your heart, be humble, and glorify God.
2) If you are honoring your husband from your heart, are humble, and glorify God, then the veil is optional.
3) Follow the set standards of propriety of the culture concerning veiling.
|
8) True Both veiling and "the spirit of veiling" are commanded in 1Cor 11:1-16.Based on these definitions of veiling and "the spirit of veiling" and also #8 being true you should be able to show, without commentary, which passages in 1Cor 11:1-16 command each of these items in the above table.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 13, 2008 15:28:36 GMT -5
Sorry, is there a question for me to answer in the above post?
I'm a little dense today.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 15:40:36 GMT -5
My fault. Will you please fulfill the last line in that post?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 13, 2008 15:53:41 GMT -5
Here are your definitions of veiling and "the spirit of veiling." you should be able to show, without commentary, which passages in 1Cor 11:1-16 command each of these items in the above table. 1Co 11:7 & 1Co 11:10 are for the letter. 1Corinth 11:7 & 1Corinth 11:10 May or may not not be of the spirit depending on the attitude of the heart. 1Corinth 11:4, 1Corinth 11:5 are of the spirit.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 18:16:39 GMT -5
You | Paul | Me | 1) Use the veil without regard for the motive of ones heart.
2) Wear the veil even if you are not honoring your husband from your heart, aren’t in the attitude of humility, and don’t glorify God.
3) Your can have the right attitude but not wear the veil, which makes you guilty.
| 1Co 11:7 For truly a man ought not to have the head covered, being the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man;
1Co 11:10 because of this, the woman ought to have authority on the head, because of the angels.
| Men should not be covered BECAUSE they are the image and glory of God.
But woman is the glory of man and THEREFORE she should be covered BECAUSE of the angels.
#1 NO WAY. #2 and #3 are absent because the proper attitude is assumed.
| 1) Honor your husband from your heart, be humble, and glorify God.
2) If you are honoring your husband from your heart, are humble, and glorify God, then the veil is optional.
3) Follow the set standards of propriety of the culture concerning veiling.
| 1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having anything down over his head shames his head.
1Co 11:5 And every woman praying or prophesying with the head unveiled dishonors her head, for it is the same as being shaved.
| Every man praying or prophesying who is literally covered shames the Lord.
Every woman praying, etc. who is literally unveiled dishonors the man extremely
#1 is assumed, not instructed. #2 is absent. #3 is absent.
|
This is why I believe it it false to say there are two separate commands in the passage:Men | Women | Every man praying or prophesying who is literally covered shames the Lord. | Every woman praying, etc. who is literally unveiled dishonors the man extremely (as even nature teaches) | Therefore | Therefore | Men should not be covered BECAUSE they are the image and glory of God. | THEREFORE, being the glory of man, she should be covered BECAUSE of the angels. |
There are probably specific passages that exhort Christians to obey what you were calling "the spirit of veiling" but this passage in Corinthians SPECIFICALLY limits itself to instructing and explaining the USE of the veil BASED ON THE ASSUMED FACT that Christians by "nature" are ALREADY obeying "the spirit of veiling." THEREFORE when Paul explains it to them, he can be confident that simply giving them the reasons for DOING IT will automatically result in them OBEYING BECAUSE they are already willing to fulfill it in spirit. I hope you understand this. What I am saying is that the underlying motive of reverence is already assumed in the fact that he is writing to SAINTS. Definitions: 1) " Veiled men": Men who are doing what Paul says shames the Lord. 2) " Men honoring Christ": Men who are not doing what Paul says shames the Lord. 3) " Christian men": Christian men Major Premise: No "veiled men" are "men honoring Christ."Minor Premise: All "Christian men" are "men honoring Christ."Conclusion: No "Christian men" are "veiled men."Definitions: 1) " Unveiled women": Women who are doing what Paul says dishonors their husbands. 2) " Women honoring their husbands": Women who are not doing what Paul says dishonors their husbands. 3) " Christian wives": Christian wives Major Premise: No "unveiled women" are "women honoring their husbands."Minor Premise: All "Christian wives" are "women honoring their husbands."Conclusion: No "Christian wives" are "unveiled women."
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 13, 2008 20:37:57 GMT -5
How is it that we don't have to be circumcisised or not have to rest on Saterday, but we must keep the veil? God commanded all those that we need not to keep by the letter, how much more if only Paul made tells some to do which is obviously cultural.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 13, 2008 22:34:49 GMT -5
You can see in the above post and using these other examples that the spirit vs letter dichotomy doesn't stand up in this case. Letter vs spirit of the law could be a whole 'nother thread. It just does not apply to this passage in 1 Cor.
Water baptism is symbolic. But Christians must obey. The Lord's supper is symbolic. But Christians must obey. The use of the veil is symbolic. But Christians must obey.
Now, if you were nailed to a cross when you repented and turned your heart to the Lord, THEN you would be free according to the Spirit from water baptism, the Lord's supper, veiling, and anything else that was physically beyond your control. A woman who had some kind of sensitive wound on her head would be exempt from wearing her usual veil if it was too difficult. Or if you were going to be executed with a hood on your head and had no control over it, I think it would be good to pray. There is a difference between the letter and the spirit but if we are able to fulfill the spirit through the letter (which we are in this case) then we must do it that way. If there is no water available for baptism, then there's no water. If no bread or wine or anything for the Lord's supper then we are not guilty of anything.
The apostle Paul was appointed by the Lord Jesus to be a teacher to us gentile nations. That means you and me. He poured out his life to bring the gospel of the Messiah to us. He was filled with the Holy Spirit when he was writing these passages.
If it was cultural only, it would say so. It doesn't. It says otherwise. If it was optional, it would say so. It doesn't. It says otherwise.
If sinners don't understand water baptism and the Lord's supper, we wouldn't just abandon them because we were worried about what they might think. The reason is that they are commanded, and are symbolic of things that have nothing to do with accommodating the fickle opinions of a sinful world.
The fact that veiling is the proper practice of the church of God means that it can only be beneficial to the ones who are obedient to it. Everything that God ordains is for our benefit, never to harm us or enslave us to foolish things. God is worthy of our trust in all things. There are also many practical benefits of regular use in a natural sense. Women who cover their hair are usually treated with more respect by men. In word and with the eyes. Also it helps a woman not to be tempted to practice vanity by spending more time than is needed with her hair. For some women that could make a big difference.
The veil, as Paul teaches, is literally an expression of femininity that is ordained by God as evidenced in nature. It's already apparent that what is called "feminism" has actually robbed women of their femininity. What is called "women's liberation" has actually enslaved them to masculine roles which they were never made for. So also is that which our FOOLISH culture calls oppression actually a liberation from the chaotic blurring of gender identity which Satan has worked in our midst. No woman should be discouraged from wearing a veil. They should instead be encouraged to wear them. Satan has deceived them again into thinking evil is good and good is evil and AGAIN the man is passively standing by doing NOTHING and saying NOTHING even though in he may know that things are not the way God would prefer them.
Now, women who are "spiritually veiled" toward their husbands will be humble, submissive, etc. when it comes to being taught about veiling if they do not already know about it. It's important that a woman be encouraged and allowed to learn about this and benefit from it but most importantly to give glory to God and to reverence her husband, father, etc. through it.
|
|