1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618886]Don says "I do agree that the Lord may say something but once, for it to be truth, that he has no need to repeat himself in order for it to be seen as truth by Man. I would not concede that, if God has commanded in 1Co11, that if he has only there said so once, that it then is seen as truth as a command retroactively in effect for the Beginning. If you think I believe that if 1Co11 commands something, that it must then also be a command for all other times previous, then I now deny that I believe so. You may misunderstand me, sir. I do not believe that NT-time commands can be applied retroactively to the OT. I do not concede, nor have conceded this point, contrary to your assertion."

I reply,

I never suggested that 1 Cor 11 is a command for anybody BUT the new covenant church of God. It was never suggested (at least not by me) that the instruction in 1 Cor 11 applied to people under the Sinaitic covenant, or before that. In fact, I already showed the CONTRAST between the new covenant head covering instruction and the old covenant head covering instruction (given to the priests).

Furthermore, I never said YOU believed that if 1 Cor 11 is a command, it must be retroactive to prior times.

I'm glad we got that out of the way. What you had said, about your assertion that if God says it once, led me to believe these things of you in error. Lets move on and put this misunderstanding behind us.

I have no idea what cavil this is, but a cavil it surely is.

Don't let the devil place a wedge between us. You misunderstand me, my brother, it is not a cavil. As I misunderstood you, so you misunderstood me. This happens sometimes when the shortage of penned words, is complicated by the deficient medium of using script.



YOU SAID that on the one hand, if God says something once, it is true, and obligatory. But you also said on the other hand, that if God commanded the veil in 1 Cor 11 then it needs to be seen as having been also commanded previously.

The two positions are flatly contradictory.

No, not really. Well, I for one don't see them as contradictory, as I now explain with what follows. What I've repeatedly said, which you didn't then respond to is: If God commands the keeping of the cover symbol in the NT, then he also would have commanded at the Beginning. Why? Because the same game box has been placed on the table at both locations. We know the same game box has been placed in both places because Paul's words says they are. He refers to the order of authority in location 2 (1Co11), when referring to location 1 (the Beginning).

Logic tells us, if the same game is played in two locations, then the same rules will be used in both places. Do we agree so far? If Paul is believed to play by rule A in location 2 (rule A: God commands the veil), then to be consistent, Rule A must also be played in location 1. If not, then the games are different games. We know the games are the same because Paul's words say so, when quoting the OT (location 2) for the NT times (location1).

What has been said by some is, 'There's a Rule A in v5,6' in location 2. But this rule isn't seen in the game played at the Beginning (location 1), is it? Are we still in agreement? Rule A has not been openly stated/recorded/seen in location 1. What is in fact seen at location1 is, there are no rules - we can't find any rule there, let alone Rule A.

(All that is actually seen of rules in location 1 is an expectation that the game will be played. No rules are stated) Thus, if the same game box is on the table in both locations, and we logically expect the same rules to be applied equally to both locations, we now must decipher which rules, if any, are the rules to play by, for today. Do we play by the Beginning or do we play by the middle, the NT?

The Law of Firsts trumps the Law of the Middle. Whatever came first sets the tone for what follows. Whatever came first sets precedents for all which follows. Whatever is seen as truth on the first day of Man's existence remains as truth for the remainder of Man's existence. Whatever comes after, as truth, must be in agreement with what has already been first presented as truth. (We see this principle arising out the the nature of the Prime One, the One who has always existed, who creates the things which come after him. All truth must agree with his nature or it isn't truth.)

The Beginning shows no commands for the keeping of symbols for respect to the order of God's authority, nor even commands for the order of authority. But saying this doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It exists by expectation that it should be kept because: 1. Because God exists eternally, all who are created by him are expected to reverence him and his ways. 2. Because God makes Eve for Adam, it is expected that she should fulfill the purpose for which she has been created, which reverencing him helps her do. God commands neither of these two in the Beginning, yet they are known by other means, because we are made in the image of God. As Truth, he is the most rational being in existence and he has shared the ability to be rational with us, by his image. We know of needing to show respect for God's order of authority only because we are rational. He has never commanded so in the Beginning that Man should show this respect. If he doesn't in location 1, then he doesn't in location 2.

It is not logical to think that God commands only for the times of the new covenant church of God and had not also done so for the OT times. The same game box is on both tables, and if it is said that the rules are only for the NT table game, then why does Paul ever need to refer to the Beginning? It is unessential, pointless to do so, because the game would be a new game. Not referring to the Beginning would see him placing a new game box on the NT table, and we know he has placed the same game box that is seen in the Beginning, because his words says he does.

Whatever rule, if any, applies to one place, also applies to the other, because they are the same game. And the Beginning's lack-of-rules trumps/sets precedent against the thought that there are any later rules/commands. God's Beginning ways, his unstated-expectations-rationally-derived continues to rule, as a truth not ever having been rescinded. If you assent to the first statement, you concede (give up) the second. If you adhere to the second, you deny the first. They cannot both be correct at the same time.

And so much for the issue of "the veil in the old testament".

And, so much for the thought that the cover is only for the new covenant church of God times.

[jediwill83]

Me over here with uncut hair for over a year under very *interesting* circumstances that may or may not have had something to do with a vow that may or may not have came upon me and with much weeping and travail I heard the words come from my lips....


And the words were "For the shame upon this nation"....


This occured Oct 17th of last year....


Heres the thing folks....Paul took a vow and the only place we find mention of such a vow proscribed is in Numbers I believe and it lays out the provisions for the Nazarite Vow.


Those that took that vow were under the same level of ceremonial purity as the High Priest and there were two versions of the vow...


Lifetime *Samuel, Sampson, Absolom*dont @ me...that man was a Nazarite and I have good reason to believe that his tragic action was under the influece of the Lord as a Judgement against the house of David but I could be wrong...also his yearly cutting of his hair tracks with the provision for a lifetime Nazarite to cut their during certain times if it became too heavy...this was allowed for lifetime Nazarites...his yearly offering of the hair is the evidence I propose.


This flies in the face of the idea out of hand that "Long hair on a man is a sign of rebellion"


Its a sign of Holy Consecration....


Paul not only completed his vow which means he had a lifetime vow I would hazard to guess that he took upon himself soon after his conversion...the trip to Jerusalem was to end that vow he took for either a temporary time*which was allowed... the minimum period was one month*


Or it was permanent...and he was acting under that provision and he also took others with him on that trip and financed their vow offering as well because it wasnt just the hair burned...but there was an offering given as well.


Did not Paul say,"It is a shame for a man to have long hair?"


Shame was one of the reasons the vow was taken...it was akin to sackcloth and ashes...consecration...repentence...set apart.


So yeah...long hair dont care...and its nearly completely white....

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618887]Don says "This is what we see with Esaias's non-responses and only shouting 'its wrong'"

This is just a snippet from a whole paragraph of ad hominem porridge Don is trying to serve up. It's rather funny, Don cries when mocked by others but has no problem himself mocking others.

Hopefully I've never mocked a person's character. My apologies if ever having done so. Mock ideas? Sure, when done with logic. Fair game, when contributing something substantial and not useless comments or emojis. If anyone puts out illogical ideas then its right that they be dealt with summarily. No sense having poor logic or errors of fact polluting others heads. God much prefers truth to lies. Mock someones character, then you criticize the one who made the character. I'd much rather stick to talk about the Bible. Brother Benincasa remarked about Dudley Do-Don's penchant for passive aggressive behaviour. We have seen it here a plenty in this thread, and we saw it in the other thread as well.

Sorry, Don, you blew your chances at reasonable discourse awhile back.

Not really. All my discourses have been reasonable. But, plz point out only 1. I'm sure you will spin this into yet another passive aggressive ad hominem but such is life. And no, I'm not "offended" that you tried slinging some mud, believe me. I have no problem with people using whatever rhetorical devices they choose.

Unless they are being intellectually dishonest and demonstrate a total lack of self awareness, which you have.

Plz provide an example. Or is this another case of saying 'you're wrong' and running off without providing evidence. I am typing this while recovering from tonight's sparring. I sparred a pro boxer who currently has no losses, 2/3rds of his wins were by knockout. He went easy on me but I got worked over for sure. So TRUST ME, your words on the internet don't phase me one bit.

That's not why I'm dropping the conversation. I'm dropping it because you are like a typical kung fool "master" braying at an actual fighter about how tough you are, and when the fighter smiles and walks off you shout "See? I knew you was afraid to face me!"

You beat me to it. If you really do go then we no longer need wait for responses to post 47, nor other questions posed but left unanswered. Thx for sparring with me, too short though it was.

So, enjoy the rest of your thread and your "obvious victory".

Nay sir, I do not, repeat, do not see this as a victory. It is a loss for truth. That which truth requires, a careful examination and critiquing of the instinct view, has not been achieved. It is a sad day indeed, if you really do go.

Just keep it on the internet, because in the real world there are plenty of people who aren't nearly as nice as me and whose "instinct" would be to punch you in the face.

That would never be my reaction to anyone in reasonable dialogue, no matter how wide the differences of opinion. Opposing opinions should be welcomed as part of the process of presenting opinion for examination.

Should you feel better after recovering from boxing, changing your mind about leaving on a sunnier day, then do come back for more word sparring. You'd be welcomed as the giant on AFF you are.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

[

It is not logical to think that God commands only for the times of the new covenant church of God and had not also done so for the OT times.

First of all, I did not say "God commands only for the times of the new covenant". That wording implies that God never commanded anything prior to the new covenant. But I do not think that is what you are trying to say. So I'll move on.

You said God can command something ONCE, anywhere in the Bible, and it is valid and obligatory. Therefore, God can command something in 1 Cor 11, and it is valid and obligatory. Yet, here you are pretending that you can affirm both that God can command something ONCE and also that He must have commanded something in a prior scripture, in a prior testament, in order for a command in 1 Cor 11 to be valid and obligatory. Otherwise, say you, there is no command in 1 Cor 11.

You want your cake and you want to eat it too. Sorry, but you're in the wrong kitchen.

Once again, if God can command something ONCE, and it can be anywhere in Scripture, then God can command something in 1 Cor 11, without it being required to be additionally commanded somewhere - anywhere - else.

If you want to maintain that 1 Cor 11 cannot command something unless that command is likewise given somewhere in the old testament or in the Gospels or wherever, then you cannot affirm that God can command something once. And if you affirm that God cannot command something once, then you would need to prove where God said (twice, even!) that He cannot command something once.

Which cannot be done.

Therefore, your point about the lack of a veil command in the old testament is refuted, because it is irrelevant.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Me over here with uncut hair for over a year under very *interesting* circumstances that may or may not have had something to do with a vow that may or may not have came upon me and with much weeping and travail I heard the words come from my lips....


And the words were "For the shame upon this nation"....


This occured Oct 17th of last year....


Heres the thing folks....Paul took a vow and the only place we find mention of such a vow proscribed is in Numbers I believe and it lays out the provisions for the Nazarite Vow.


Those that took that vow were under the same level of ceremonial purity as the High Priest and there were two versions of the vow...


Lifetime *Samuel, Sampson, Absolom*dont @ me...that man was a Nazarite and I have good reason to believe that his tragic action was under the influece of the Lord as a Judgement against the house of David but I could be wrong...also his yearly cutting of his hair tracks with the provision for a lifetime Nazarite to cut their during certain times if it became too heavy...this was allowed for lifetime Nazarites...his yearly offering of the hair is the evidence I propose.


This flies in the face of the idea out of hand that "Long hair on a man is a sign of rebellion"


Its a sign of Holy Consecration....


Paul not only completed his vow which means he had a lifetime vow I would hazard to guess that he took upon himself soon after his conversion...the trip to Jerusalem was to end that vow he took for either a temporary time*which was allowed... the minimum period was one month*


Or it was permanent...and he was acting under that provision and he also took others with him on that trip and financed their vow offering as well because it wasnt just the hair burned...but there was an offering given as well.


Did not Paul say,"It is a shame for a man to have long hair?"


Shame was one of the reasons the vow was taken...it was akin to sackcloth and ashes...consecration...repentence...set apart.


So yeah...long hair dont care...and its nearly completely white....

Just keep your hat off in church.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

First of all, I did not say "God commands only for the times of the new covenant". That wording implies that God never commanded anything prior to the new covenant. But I do not think that is what you are trying to say. So I'll move on.

You said God can command something ONCE, anywhere in the Bible, and it is valid and obligatory. Therefore, God can command something in 1 Cor 11, and it is valid and obligatory. Yet, here you are pretending that you can affirm both that God can command something ONCE and also that He must have commanded something in a prior scripture, in a prior testament, in order for a command in 1 Cor 11 to be valid and obligatory. Otherwise, say you, there is no command in 1 Cor 11.

You want your cake and you want to eat it too. Sorry, but you're in the wrong kitchen.

Once again, if God can command something ONCE, and it can be anywhere in Scripture, then God can command something in 1 Cor 11, without it being required to be additionally commanded somewhere - anywhere - else.

If you want to maintain that 1 Cor 11 cannot command something unless that command is likewise given somewhere in the old testament or in the Gospels or wherever, then you cannot affirm that God can command something once. And if you affirm that God cannot command something once, then you would need to prove where God said (twice, even!) that He cannot command something once.

Which cannot be done.

Therefore, your point about the lack of a veil command in the old testament is refuted, because it is irrelevant.

Sadly, Don refuses to learn. Wasn’t he instructed on how to properly put a post together? Yet, he continues to bang out these posts which you can’t tell where the other poster is commenting and Don is replying. He figured out how to color his fonts black, but can’t handle using quote blocks? Don, believes God made suggestions, Paul made suggestions. If you happen to be born on a remote section of the planet and never heard the Gospel you are good???

Don is just collateral damage from the Pentecostal movement. Hence he sat down at his computer to rearrange what he grew up around. To make Church a nicer friendly place, where everyone is kinder than Jesus. Moses David Berg, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Jim Jones created Church in their own image. They all had worked from the premise that Church needed to be restored to the original church. Sadly, the end product always looks like them. Instead of looking like Jesus. Jesus said my sheep hear my voice and another they shall not follow.

There is His voice and the voice of the Stranger.

Don whose voice do you hear?

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Just keep your hat off in church.

Im not a "hat" guy. More of a Hoodie Flunkie? 🤣

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Tithesmeister;1618890]

Quote: Originally Posted by Esaias

The issue of 1 Cor 11 is not about general modesty nor about "the purpose of the veil in a culture far removed from ours both in time and geography". The issue is about the churches of God and propriety in praying and prophesying. Paul does not refer the Corinthians to local "custom"

When he uses their everyday word for their veil custom, it is hard for any readers not to see him thinking about the custom the word describes! Thus, he must be understood to refer to the custom of the veil. If this custom thought conflicts with your view then you have 2 choices: 1 change your view for one which gives explanation of why Paul would refer to a custom, or 2. keep saying Paul does not refer to the custom (though using the word for it), until you convince everyone in the world it is so. Which one do you think is the right thing to do? 1Co11 is scripture, which uses words which should be believed as they are given. Paul does actually refer to the veil. But when believed to be the cover as the symbol to show respect to God's order of authority, it causes another hole - nowhere is their a command in the OT that the veil is the cover. (And Paul refers to the OT for the basis for his 1Co11 thoughts.) Thus, Paul should be thought to refer to the veil as a custom and not as God's cover symbol. If done so, it removes these holes: 1. saying he doesn't doesn't refer to the veil in any way (held by those of uncut long) 2. that God never commanded the veil in the OT (which command should be there for God to be seen consistent) 3. It removes the conflict between v5 and v15, which show 2 different covers, when the veil and not long hair is erroneously said to be the cover. But if you only focus microscopically on v5,6 then it is hard not to say that Paul commands the veil as the cover. Doctrine is nicer when it doesn't have holes.

, but to Adam and Eve, to the order of Creation, and to the angels.

It's hard not to agree with what is said here. What is also hard, is to believe Eve would not have also been commanded the veil, if the Co are. Believing and acting on this should compel a need to look for a view which can incorporate all these facts without contradiction. I believe the instinct view to do so. None of which have anything to do with "a culture far removed from ours in time and geography".

Besides which, the universal practice in all of Christendom for some 2000 years has been to practice what Paul taught. This has only been dropped in Western countries in the last 100 years or so, although the remnants of the practice has remained still in a large number of churches in the West in one form or another. Thus, in most churches, men still remove their hats, and there is nothing thought unseemly about a woman wearing a hat or scarf or something during church.

If God would specifically command then he would specify and not leave it to the whim of Man to do what is said to plz God. It would not be 'hat or scarf or something else'. Commands does not leave options of pick one of many in the philosophy of Man for your choice. Who thinks up stuff like this? It shows a desire to make scripture fit Man's ideas.


Tithesmeister replies to Esaias:

Sorry Esaias. I didn’t realize y’all were isolating 1Corinthians 11 from the Old Testament examples of veil use. I still think it’s interesting even if it’s not necessarily relevant to the story.

I'd say it has to be critically relevant. Paul should not be seen as separating 1Co11 from the OT. He refers to the OT, when teaching NT people. He shouldn't be thought to isolate but to join them.

I’m not trying to take a side in the discussion, I’m just trying to learn. I think that the position that Esaias takes makes the most sense to me.

Esaias's view has holes. The view that God has of 1Co11 should not be thought to have holes. His omniscience would prevent this. A view must be held which has no holes, or at minimum, the view held should be seen to have the least amount of holes of all views. This view would then be the closest to God's hole-less view.

Cloverdale, the one who translated his Bible: “It shall greatly help ye to understand the Scriptures if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth after.” With that in mind, a view of 1Co11 must include both long hair and the veil because of the prominence both held in their culture and in this scripture passage. When Paul is seen to say v15, But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering., it causes conflicts (holes) with the veil view (which says the veil is the cover). A view with the least holes should have a way to explain away this hole. Thus far, the holders of the veil view, Esaias and Amanah, have not done so. Silence is all that is heard. Why do these two, who usually have many words, why have they remained silent? Because their view does not have a come-back because it doesn't allow it. It is hard to argue against truth with falsehood. It doesn't fit. Reader, check out the instinct view, which has an explanation which places v5, v15, the veil, and long hair in congruency with each other and with what is seen in life and all areas of scripture as well.

I wish it were articulated more clearly by Paul, but I have an idea that in his time, and to the audience he was writing to, it probably made perfect sense.

Agreed. It would be most unusual to think that Paul wouldn't have made perfect sense to the Co. No one serious would seriously write in such a way that wouldn't be perfectly understood by the receiver. It would be out of character for Paul to do otherwise. Paul grew up in a culture similar to the culture of Co. Thus, when he writes in a way which to us is not clear, this knowledge would help the Co be seen by us as understanding what Paul writes of. Co culture viewed both long hair and the veil favourably. Paul writes of both hair and the veil. Seeing what is seen through this filter may help us decipher today what the Co understood. In fact, this is what should be done. Paul certainly writes about both, and, to make the whole passage make sense, I see Paul addressing both the custom of the veil and what God had provided through long hair. A view must be found which addresses both the veil and hair, providing reasons why he would address both. The instincts view does with its explanation, in my opinion.

I have also thought about the custom of removing our hats to pray as men. It does seem uncouth for a man to pray with a hat on.

The question I've asked myself about this is, why is it so? Do I also feel this way only because of years of having had believed and having been taught this to be true, or is my spirit/conscience testifying to what it feels and knows to be from God? Years of believing something, even if it is not true, bends the spirit/thinking in a certain direction. Trusting misinterpreted doctrine does the same. If the light in you is darkness, how great is that darkness, Jesus said. If what is felt, in the spirit/conscience, is testifying about God's ways, then scripture usually concurs. There is precious little in scripture testifying to the impropriety of a man being uncovered before God for prayer (but many verses testifying of covering the head/face when shamed, as referred to by the instinct view). That aside, I also have a personal feeling/thought that it is proper to bare my head before others. Why? Because I like it when it is done for me. I like to see the whole of the person (the head being the unofficial centre of Man, symbolically representing the whole). We often do for others what we would like them to do for us. Uncover the head because it helps see the whole head, which we like to see for some no-reason reason. Just because it feels right when seeing the whole head. (Did God ever command it for everyday people? The High Priest was a special case. Special people get special rules which do not necessarily apply to regular people. Is there another place other than misinterpreted 1Co11?) Knowing that God is a real person may stimulate a transfer to him, this feeling of it being proper to uncover, the same as before others. Thus, it may be done because of something in our nature likes it, though not being a command of God. God does not command a man to be uncovered before him unless 1Co11 is misinterpreted. The thought that he does is out of sync with the whole of the Bible, thus a misinterpretation. It also does not make sense that God would command man but not the woman, when they are equals in the image of God. What is said of man in this regard should apply equally to the woman in this regard. Has what is written in 1Co11 been (subconsciously) melded with the human trait only because it also involves the head? Perhaps. I suggest it does.

Just another note to Dan?

Don, as in my user name.

Just to keep it real, it really shouldn’t be on Esaias to prove you wrong.

True. Agreed, that it should not seen that it is Esaias alone who should be exposing the errors that I present, if so. It comes naturally that the one who demonstrates by the usual ways things have been in AFF, in this case that Esaias is seen as a giant because of his many responses with great knowledge and insight, that he represents the whole. Although informally, unofficially done, it nevertheless is my impression of him. The church is a body with many parts functioning together, and the mouth isn't the whole, though it does all the talking. All parts should contribute to the functioning of the body, but the mouth talks. Esaias is AFF's mouth in my mind.


I think that would be an unrealistic precedent to follow. Typically, when we address doctrine, it is incumbent on us individually to prove doctrine by supporting it with scripture. After all there is only one doctrine that is true and correct. There are many opinions. And of course, as is usually the case in vetting doctrine, it is only possible for one view to be true.

On the other hand it is possible for both to be wrong.

Very true indeed.

Or all three. I do think it’s important to pursue truth though. That is the beauty of the AFF forum in my opinion.

Tithemeister and all readers, plz take the time to examine and critique the instinct view. It explains away the holes seen in the veil view and the uncut long hair view. Your critiquing is important because I am the purveyer of this view and am biased in its favour, perhaps blinded to errors of reasoning you may expose.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618921]

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1

"It is not logical to think that God commands only for the times of the new covenant church of God and had not also done so for the OT times."

Esaias replies:

First of all, I did not say "God commands only for the times of the new covenant". That wording implies that God never commanded anything prior to the new covenant.

See post 137, second para, where Esaias says "I never suggested that 1 Cor 11 is a command for anybody BUT the new covenant church of God." where it appears you say this very thing. This is saying to me, 'a command for anybody BUT ONLY the new covenant church of God'. Perhaps you would now want to reword it in a way that doesn't suggest you believe it to be so, leading to misunderstandings.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

When Paul is seen to say v15, But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering., it causes conflicts (holes) with the veil view (which says the veil is the cover). A view with the least holes should have a way to explain away this hole. Thus far, the holders of the veil view, Esaias and Amanah, have not done so. Silence is all that is heard. Why do these two, who usually have many words, why have they remained silent? Because their view does not have a come-back because it doesn't allow it.

Don thinks this is my first rodeo, apparently.

1. The word used in "her hair is given her for a covering" is a different word than the words used both in 1 Cor 11 and in the Septuagint Greek old testament to represent a head covering. The word used is properly a "mantle" or shawl, a "wrap-around". It is therefore something different than what is being commanded.

2. The "her hair is given her for a covering" is part of the lesson from "nature" that illustrates the spiritual covering the woman needs when praying or prophesying. Therefore it is not the very same thing being commanded. That which illustrates something is not the very thing being illustrated. Paul is saying that since nature provides a "covering" for the woman this shows that nature is in alignment with and supportive of the need for the woman to have a spiritual covering when praying or prophesying. Not that since nature provides a covering for the woman she doesn't need a spiritual covering.

3. The fact the subject matter is "praying or prophesying" indicates the covering is relevant to THAT, and not to "everyday all day at night every time all the time", which would be the case in regards to hair length. One does not alter the length or "uncut status" of one's hair every time one prays or prophesying. Paul would not be addressing the TIMES of praying or prophesying if he was simply talking about appropriate hair length on people. But it would make perfect sense for him to address the times of praying and prophesying if he were speaking of the need for men to remove a covering and for women to don a covering when praying or prophesying.

4. 1 Corinthians 11:5 KJV
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Here Paul specifies that if the woman prays or prophesies with her head uncovered it is AS IF she were shaven. Thus, being uncovered is not the very same thing as not having long hair, but is AS IF her hair had been shaved off. If one were to say "going to church without wearing your Sunday best is AS IF you showed up naked" would never be taken to mean that not wearing your Sunday best literally means not wearing clothes at all. The fact Paul says it is AS IF she were shaven means he is not saying she already is shaven, only that it has the same IMPORT.

5. 1 Corinthians 11:6 KJV
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Here Paul states if the woman be not covered then let her ALSO be shorn. This proves beyond any possibility of doubt that the woman being uncovered when praying or prophesying does NOT mean she has cut hair. Rather, it clearly and undoubtedly means that IF she is uncovered, then IN ADDITION TO her being uncovered she should ALSO have her hair cut off. If one were to say "if you go to the store then ALSO go to the bank" nobody would think that the person meant going to the store and going to the bank are the same thing. Rather, that IN ADDITION to going to the store, one is to ALSO go to the bank. So here Paul says that IN ADDITION to praying or prophesying uncovered, she is to ALSO be shorn.

The argument that "her hair is given her for a covering" is an old objection to the apostolic headcovering, which EVERY advocate of the headcovering is quite familiar with. The idea that "silence is their only response because blah blah blah" is quite silly. Don thinks this is some kind of "gotcha" moment, but that is because Don has apparently never encountered anyone who agrees with Paul on the issue of the headcovering. Personally, I don't remember Don even raising the issue before. It may be that he has, and it was overlooked. If it was overlooked, it was either because Don's post formatting is horrible and doesn't contribute to reading everything he types, or else because his fundamental premises are so obviously wrong that it doesn't require exhaustive refutation of every minute detail of his ramblings. As stated previously, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step, but if that first step is in the wrong direction there is no need to proceed further.