[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618592]

from Amanah, post 38. 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.

When speaking of a system it is hard to remove individual parts from discussions because they were designed to work together as a whole. Leave parts out and its not likely to work (well). It is better not to discuss 1Co11 as parts. What you've said in this post keeps pointing back to the necessity to conclude a covering one way or the other.

The biblical basis for head covering during worship

You and Esaias, and others, seem to indicate that the head covering is for times of worship alone. Can you emphatically state that this is your view? What is written in this post by me assumes this to be so.

is rooted in the creation order and hierarchical relationships established in Scripture.

Esaias states that all the churches kept all the traditions. And because all the churches were uniform in their beliefs, because Paul teaches co/unco to the Co church, it must then have been believed in every church because of unity of belief. Esaias starts at the wrong end. If what Paul writes of the order of authority is from a new revelation of it (the words 'order of authority' are not seen in the Beginning verses, though the concept of it is clearly derived from it. Is Paul the one and only to highlight the concept in one sentence? Which other writer has done similarly. I'm not saying none have, I just don't know of any. It may then be a new concept.) then how could there be unity of belief on it or co/unco, which also has its first mention here.

In 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, Paul addresses the Corinthian church's questions on worship practices, emphasizing recognition of authority.

There is considerable difference of opinion from scholars whether this portion, 1Co11.2-16, is part of that. And many place v1 outside of the portion having to do with headcovering.

on worship practices, emphasizing recognition of authority.

He establishes the divine hierarchy: God...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.

Agreed.

The concept of κεφαλή (kephalē) is crucial, specifically referring to authority (1 Corinthians 11:3).

And the differences of opinion, mentioned above, rage on, seen in how different scholars view kephalē. What kephalē exactly means does not have a uniformity of belief.

This understanding is reinforced by Ephesians 5:22-24 and Colossians 3:18, emphasizing submission.

If kephalē does really mean headship and not origin, then these verses fit in well. That Eph5 + Col3, are in scripture does not declare which view of kephalē in 1Co11 is the corrrect one to hold.

In worship, head covering signifies recognition of this authority.

Agreed. While not agreeing that worship is the only time head coverings are to be present, the head covering (what ever it is determined to be) is a symbol showing respect to God's order of authority.

Some believe that only the female is to demonstrate a symbol. This strains at the concept that man and woman are equally the image of God. As such we would expect that both must by symbols show respect to God. Does your view of 1Co11 show both or only one showing respect with symbols. The instinct view shows both.

Κατακαλύπτω (katakalyptō) means to cover or veil (1 Corinthians 11:6), while ἀκατακαλύπτω (akatakalyptō) implies shame in uncovered or unveiled (1 Corinthians 11:5).

By referencing these specific words, which to all Gk speakers indicate a veil made of material, do you now specify this veil as the cover all should use as a symbol of submission to God's authority, doing that which you said you would avoid? These Gk words are opposites. But the opposite of veiled is not shamed, and the Gk lex does not endorse shame as part of its definition. If unveiled is a shame it is so because someone other than the word definition has made it so. The context at hand gives us 2 choices to make it so: either God or Co society. Or would you say there are other choices for a source of the shame?

Nature teaches by example that long hair serves as a natural covering (1 Corinthians 11:15),

Yes, if it is natural that all women have long hair. Has it been proved so, beyond opinion? Is it possible to show this as a Biblical truth? Is it natural that they must do so? Or is it only seen that most women have long hair and then say that it must be natural for any to be so? What is it that compels women to have long hair, if indeed they are compelled to do so? Many women today cut their hair and it would not seem to be natural for today's woman to have long hair. Have they lost the compulsion and how did this loss happen? Does God compel them by command or does society or does a woman have something in their nature which compels - instincts? How can it ever be definitively determined what it is that compels long hair?

Men are just as capable to have long hair as women. Apparently they do not feel the same compulsion to have long hair as women, for many cut it. Though capable to have long hair it is not natural for them to have long hair because it is seen that most men don't. This is true because most men, doing what comes natural, don't have long hair. Why do they not have the same compulsion as 50% of humanity do? Do they have a compulsion to cut it shorter? Can the source of the compulsion be determined? Is it as natural for a man to have shorter hair as it is natural for a woman to have longer hair?

Many of the statements just made are made as the devil's advocate and their presence does not necessarily mean that I embrace them or not. They are said to spur thought about saying it is natural for a woman to have long hair. Saying so doesn't give explanation as to why it is so. If it is said that Man has instincts which guide their behaviour then I would agree that it is natural by instincts. God gave the instinct to be part of the nature of Man.

Nor has a definition of 'nature' been given by you. Esaias avoids it and do you follow on? Have you explored the Gk definitions available? Which one of multiple should be used? Which one of the multiple do we agree should be the one Paul is said to use? This is the goal of any interpreter - find out what the writer means. It is the only valid finding.

and angels witness worship, emphasizing reverence (1 Corinthians 11:10).

None should disagree. Also true that angels witness all of the life of Man and not just the times of worship. Plz note that symbol is not among the words Paul writes.

The symbolic significance of head covering isn't related to culture as the Corinthian culture was pagan.

What you are saying here is: the need to use a symbol hasn't emerged from pagans. The need for a symbol emerged pre-culture, the instant humans were created. Adam and Eve also needed to maintain respect for the order of God's authority from the moment of their creation. It would be expected then, that the first humans would, by symbol, show respect for God's order of authority, if all other humans are to show this respect by symbol. Thus, if the wearing of a symbol is just for a time of worship, then what times of worship did Adam and Eve have where Eve would have donned it to show proper reverence? And what was the nature of it in a time before the fabrication of material? The concept of donning a cover just for times of worship has difficulty fitting into the scene of the Beginning. The idea of the cover just for times of worship must fit into the Beginning. If seen as a veil-cover it has difficulty fitting. The first of humanity fail to model what it is the rest of Man should do if it is only for times of worship. It is this or perhaps not seeing A&E to have times of worship. A&E should be seen as always in a time of worship (for the primary reason of Man is to get God glory) or find evidence that they had a time. Seeing the cover as hair fits better into the Beginning, but not possible to add it just for times of worship. That Paul mentions times of worship does not exclude that respect for God by symbols must be adhered to at all times. It is an example that Co were sensitized to and only an example of possiblity which didn't teach exclusivity of this time.

Paul emphasizes timeless

Paul does use scripture in 1Co11 but I think that he would not say that it was a timeless scripture. Respect for God had a point in time where it had a start. In eternity Jesus says they are neither male nor female, and there is no need there for a timeless order of authority.

scriptural principles and divine hierarchy. Head covering symbolizes spiritual realities: submission, reverence, and recognition of authority.

Amen, and saying this does not explain how it is achieved. The instinct view is one among many trying to explain. Logic tells us that the most logical view of the facts should be the one to hold. My mind prefers the instincts view but it has not been critiqued by many. I may have to change views if it is proved to be with error, or a better comes along.

Continuing with the thought that God commands a woman to wear a symbol during times of worship, because its need comes from what you call timeless principles. It is agreed that the principle is real.
1. If commanded, then we would expect to see commands for Eve, which is not seen. Nor do we see indications of what is an acceptable cover. God then is seen commanding and leaving it up to Man to determine what is acceptable to God. Duh.
2. We would expect to see a command for after Eden time till the Law. We see no commands for a keeping nor details of that which is to be kept for this time.
3. We see no commands for it in the OT, nor commands how a veil is to be. Moses loves to give myriads of laws on minutae, but gives none about the need to use veil as a cover or what the qualities of veil are to be.
The principle remained for all those people to honour, but there are no commands for it to be found to honour it. It is this way because God never commanded it. Not at the Beginning, where it first came to be, nor at any other time. It should not be said to be commanded in the NT if it wasn't commanded elsewhere. The logical first place is right at the Beginning. Its roots are in God's expectation that it be. God expects people to follow his order of authority, but not by command. By free will without compulsion, much as he does with expecting people to love and follow his ways. God expects people to follow the instincts he places in them but not as by command. If he doesn't command, then he can't command specifics of it - like only for times of worship.

The biblical guidance for head covering during worship stems from creation order, hierarchical relationships, and symbolic significance. By embracing this practice,

Which undefined practise is it that is indicated here. Do you have some unstated practise we should be aware of and could be responded to? And so we see again that a discussion without details is difficult.

believers demonstrate reverence for divine authority and recognition of timeless principles.