[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Interesting, since I have not ever said anything of the sort. I simply repeat what the apostle said, "praying or prophesying".

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.

I start where Paul started. He laid out his doctrine, then pointed to the uniformity of the churches as a further motive for people to get in line with his doctrine. Don doesn't seem to know where to start with either Paul or myself.

s 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.

Don doesn't believe Paul when he speaks of all the churches having the same practice. If Don had his way, every single doctrine would be taught by every single Bible writer in every single book. Since not every single doctrine is taught by every single Bible writer, Don expresses his disbelief and reluctance to accept as authoritative any doctrine he doesn't personally agree with. Suppose Don were in church with the apostle Paul. Suppose Paul said "this is how XYZ is to be done". Don would have none of it unless he first consulted all the other apostles, and then demanded they produce written copies of Jesus' own handwriting quoting Moses on the particular subject. In short, Don does not accept the authority of an apostle as an apostle. Which is fine, everybody will do what they want to do anyway. But such is not apostolic, because apostolics by definition accept as authoritative the teachings of Christ's apostles.

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.

There is considerable difference of opinion by scholars as to whether the Bible is the Word of God and not a mishmash of stolen pagan ideas collated by Jews and catholics for the purpose of controlling their respective populations. So Don has that going for him, at least.

Nor has a definition of 'nature' been given by you. Esaias avoids it

I don't recall the definition of "nature" being germane to the points I made. Whatever nature means, it is in agreement with Paul's teaching. Your errors do not require a digression into the definition of "nature" in order to be refuted.

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.

Even Don doesn't seem to have a clue what he himself is saying. "Paul would not say it is a timeless scripture". The Scripture says "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." Paul upheld the veracity and authority of the Scriptures. So Paul would definitely say the Scriptures he quoted are "timeless". Don is intent on trying to prove that whatever it was Paul was teaching, we today don't have to do it. That is the end result of his doctrine.

1. If commanded, then we would expect to see commands for Eve, which is not seen.

Where was Eve commanded to have faith in Christ? Where was Eve commanded not to murder? Where was Eve commanded not to cross dress? Etc etc blah blah blah.

There really is no need to go further. Don is launching out in to the deep thinking he is headed west for a tropical paradise but he's headed north right into an iceberg flotilla. The journey of a 1000 miles begin with a single step. But if that first step is in the wrong direction, it doesn't matter how far one goes, or what spectacular sights one sees. One will simply not arrive at the proposed destination.