[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618447]
Part2

8.

He concludes by saying:
1 Corinthians 11:16 KJV
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Who would be contentious? About what would they be contentious? To be contentious means to argue against or oppose something, to "contend" or fight against something. So who would be contentious, and against what are they contending? The obvious answer is "the people who oppose Paul's teaching, and they are contending against his teaching".

Perhaps so, because you've used good logic. Or rather, he could instead mean they are contentious about the way things are normally done in their society, which have developed from God-given instincts. Is this not also good logic? Which logic agrees more with what is seen in the OT scriptures which Paul loves and bases his thoughts and life on? Reader decide. Where does the evidence lead? Would it be permissible to state something which would lead any to believe in my conclusions/logic? If Paul reads the OT and sees no commands there for co/unco, does he conclude that God has commanded it, starting a co/unco tradition? No. If he sees no commands for it, yet sees the Jew practicing co/unco, what might he conclude as to its source? If Paul knows of the instincts referred to by Ge3.16 he may then conclude that which he sees, not only in the Jew's nation but also seen in many others, he might logically conclude that which is expressed in many nations comes from instincts. God-given instincts. It didn't come to many pagan nations by command of God. Why say that co/unco is seen in many pagan nations? Because researchers have said so and it is commonly believed, that most men over all time had short hair and most women had long hair.

It is historically accurate to say that the Gk women had a custom of long hair and also wore a veil. It is also historically accurate to say that some in Co were in the throws of a cultural revolution against their norms. It is the back-drop to what is said by Paul and perhaps also the reason why Paul writes. This is not Biblical evidence, yet still an example of showing that history helps unfold what the Bible unclearly says.

9.

That is, the contentious ones are contending against the doctrine that men are to pray and prophesy with uncovered head and women are to pray and prophesy with covered head.

To say these are contending against an existing doctrine, known by all previous to Paul's 1Co11 writing, must only assume that a doctrine has been taught previously. We have no Biblical evidence of this doctrine from before Paul's 1Co11 words, which was penned c.55-60 ad. And it is seen till now, that his 1Co11 words are unclear enough to provide a doctrine which all can agree on. Paul may be referring to expected contentions from some in the Co church who act contrary to that which he has purposely expressed by the word custom, to be those customs which those in Co lived by. People, not God, have created a custom, and I would think to say that some customs come out of people's instincts. If not human nature then where do customs originate from?

10.

In response to the contentious ones, he says "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." What custom? Obviously, the custom the contentious ones are contending FOR, in opposition to the tradition Paul is teaching. That is, neither Paul and his ministry team, nor any of the churches of God, have the custom of men praying and prophesying with covered heads and women with uncovered heads.

You've well said what you said. I'll say that I don't agree though, seen from comments I've previously made about 'customs' and 'traditions'. What I will further say about your custom-of-contention view, is that customs usually take a longer period of time to form. To say the contentions of a minority few in the Co congregation have quickly formed into a custom may be straining against the understanding of how long a custom is usually thought to take to form.

11.

To suggest that Paul is saying "we have no such custom as the tradition I just got done telling you to practice" makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You have assumed it is as a tradition. I have not. Plz provide some Biblical evidence of a co/unco tradition beyond just stating an opinion that it was. That many people believe it to be so is also not evidence, though having some weight. Had co/unco been commanded in the OT, then it could have developed into a religious tradition which carried over into the NT. Where are the OT commands for co/unco? References plz. Do you agree that OT religious traditions are based on a command of God? If not based on commands then they are just human practices - which I define as customs. An example of a Christian religious tradition is Communion, which was commanded by Jesus. An OT tradition was Passover. An example of a custom is the Christmas tree.

12.

You acknowledge this when you say:

Quote:
If Paul commands it would be illogical for him to then say 'do not contend for what I have just taught'.
You then jump the ship of reason and fall overboard when you say this immediately following:

Thank you for saying this in a way which doesn't reflect on my character, focussing on the thought instead!

13.

Quote:
What he says about the contentious shows that what he says is not a command.
No, for him to tell the contentious ones "we have no such custom" shows that whatever the contentious ones are contending for, they are contending for something the churches of God do NOT practice. And since he just got done spending half a chapter instructing a church to DO (practice) a certain thing, it is clear that the "custom" of the contentious ones must be opposite to that which he just got done teaching, and it is also clear that what he just got done teaching is in fact the custom (actually,"tradition", the practice) of the churches of God. Which means anyone not doing what he taught to do is practicing something other than what God's churches practice, they are out of step with God's people, they are not conformed to the practices of the Congregation of the Lord.

Plz bear with my definitions of 'tradition' and 'custom'. I realize there is a fine line between the definitions, and that the words are often used interchangeably. I believe that a distinction between them is important to the discussion. I prefer defining customs as coming from people and religious traditions from commands. Am I wrong on this? Paul refers to traditions in v3. He here in v16 refers to customs. He can be seen to do so for a purpose, wanting to make a distinction. Perhaps a look at the Gk lexicon may help.

That said, contentiousness is an attitude, not a custom. As explained in my commentary, contentions aren't usually referred to as customs. Customs and traditions are usually seen practised by the majority of a society, practiced over longer periods of time before being called customs or traditions. Are the contentious usually majority practioners? No. Are contentions usually thought to be customs that a majority hold? No. They are not then contentions.

14. On another note. Do you have an explanation as to why the OT has no commands for co/unco similar to that which is believed to be commanded in the NT? And/or: Plz explain how the pagan Gk have a word in their language which describes what is said by some to be a command of God - komao - long uncut hair.