So you're just making it up, then? Ok, if that's how you want to roll. Your example however is not equivalent to the subject being discussed. The issue is not are Italians to follow Paul's teaching on headcovering when praying or prophesying but Japanese are to follow some other teaching. The question was "what is the law of logic that demands Adam and Eve must have been commanded the thing that Paul commands if he uses Adam and Eve as an example to support his command"? Paul did not claim "Adam and Eve were commanded a certain way therefore we should follow their example", but rather that Adam and Eve were created in a certain order and according to a certain hierarchy, which hierarchy and order provide illustrative support for his teaching.
In another place, Paul referenced the law concerning not muzzling the ox who treads the corn as illustrative of his teaching about how apostles were to be supported by the churches they ministered to. Yet, the command in the law contains nothing about apostles being supported by the churches they ministered to.
Your "law of consistency" is not an actual law of logic. Consistency means harmony of parts to one another. Paul's teaching is consistent with his examples, as he himself explains and demonstrates. Your teaching however is not consistent with Paul's method of using examples elsewhere.
If God can command after Deuteronomy, then God can command in 1st Corinthians.
Then God may command in 1st Corinthians and it is valid even though it may not be repeated anywhere else in the Scripture. And thus your "law of consistency" and your claims that "because Paul's instructions aren't repeated in the Law or elsewhere therefore the passage in
1 Cor 11 contains no command" are admitted by you to be refuteed (by your admission of the point here that "God may speak once, and it is truth, even though not ever repeated."
"Uncut long"? Who is that? Anyways, Paul is teaching women are to wear a headcovering and men are to not wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying.
Paul taught a distinction between the old covenant and the new covenant, illustrated in the fact that Moses put a veil over his face to hide the glory of God, whereas we in the new covenant see the glory of God unveiled. Thus, the pattern is established that God's glory was concealed in the old covenant system of things but is now open and revealed in the new covenant system of things. With that in mind, we look to the commands regarding the priests under the old covenant, and we see this:
Exodus 28:4 KJV
And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.
The old covenant priests wore a head covering when they officiated. This is consistent with Paul's reasons given in 1 Cor 11, that the man's head ought to be uncovered when praying or prophesying because he is the image and glory of God. Under the old covenant, the glory of God was concealed, thus the priests wore a headcovering. Under the new covenant, the glory of God is not concealed, thus men are to be uncovered, in order to symbolise this new covenant reality.
We also see
this in the old testament scriptures:
Isaiah 47:1-3 KJV
Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. [2] Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. [3] Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.
Here, part of shaming a woman includes "uncovering (her) locks", that is, removing the headcovering. It is thus seen that in the old testament scriptures, it was inappropriate or "unseemly or uncomely" for a woman to have her head uncovered so that her hair was on full display. This is consistent with Paul asking "is it comely for a woman to pray uncovered" etc.
These are two old testament examples that are CONSISTENT with Paul's teaching concerning the headcovering practice of the churches of God.
Jews don't follow the old testament, they follow the Talmud. Besides which Jews practice covered heads in synagogue for both genders, and that is a practice they picked up AFTER the first century AD as a response to Christian practice. There is another thread on the forum concerning headcoverings where I detailed the history of Jewish, Greek, and christian practice of headcovering. You should look it up.
That is not a "logical explanation", it is only your hypothesis. But in any event, it would be ILLOGICAL for you to say the practice Paul taught is based on "God-instilled instincts" while you also hold to the idea that people need not actually follow said
God-instilled instincts. What you are saying in effect is that it is
unnatural to do otherwise than as Paul taught. Therefore, to be
consistent with your own statements, you would support Paul's teaching that men ought to be uncovered and women ought to be covered when praying or prophesying.