[donfriesen1]

Plz reader, consider critiquing the points I have made in my commentary, one at a time. One point, actually a question, is, 'why does the OT show no command for co/unco, similar to that which is said to be commanded by Paul?' Surely, if Paul bases what he says in 1Co11 on what is seen in the OT at the Beginning, thus establishing that what he says is from the OT, then we should see commands similar to co/unco there. Explain why we don't. Not seeing commands for co/unco in the OT should raise a red flag for everyone to take note and take heed.

Esaias has written me off, not responding further, saying 'if we can't agree that Apostolic authority should be heeded, then we have nothing further to discuss'. I have whole heartedly agreed that Apostolic authority should be heeded by all, yet Esaias still cuts me off. ??? Should anyone not want to enter into what might be a detailed discussion, then this would be understandable. But Esaias makes a false accusation and then runs off, intolerant of a view which doesn't coincide with his. And what of the Apostolic authority of Peter, who for a period of 10-12 years demonstrates that Gentiles shouldn't be considered to receive the Gospel? Do we follow his authoritative example because he is an Apostle, who even continued it after the Ac10 event? Apostolic authority must be clung to when clearly God's view. 1Co11 isn't clear.

If what I say in my commentary about the instinct view is truth, then all who reject truth, do so at their own peril, as He3,4,6 demonstrates. But what is not yet shown is that it is truth, demonstrated as truth by critical revue of many. Hence the request to critique it. If it doesn't stand up to a critique then it dies as it should - proved wrong. What is done by Esaias is - no revue. It is hoped it will die. Oh, well. He owes me nothing, not even a critique. But what of false accusations?