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

[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.

[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.

[Tithesmeister]

For what it is worth: I have long believed that “Doth not nature itself teach you” means what naturally takes place in the absence of unnatural or artificial interference.

If you observe nature in relation to hair of a man, versus hair of a woman, what might you notice? That a man will go bald at a rate much higher than a woman will. And as a result of this being normal, he will not be ashamed of his baldness. He may in fact even choose to shave his head and be bald. It is in fact quite common for men to do so.

Women? Not so much. They are typically ashamed of baldness. Some may do it but it is not common.

This is in my opinion what Paul means by nature itself teaching us. It is unnatural for a woman to be bald. It is not unnatural for a man to be bald.

For what it’s worth, I’ve never had anyone agree with me on this point that I can recall. So there’s that.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

from Don:

Esaias responds:

My apologies for including you when I shouldn't have. Plz forgive me. In a long thread started by Costeon called 'Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women' you had posted replies. My memory of what you had said there resulted in my thinking you believed that the cover for the woman is a veil. Was I wrong?
If it upsets you to be spoken of in the third person, I can change that. let me know.

from Don:

Esaias responds:

What is this pointing back to? What is the relevance of a comment like this to the discussion?]

On the contrary, I had said I agree with Esaias when he says the early apostolics had uniformity of belief. Post 20, third last paragraph. Post 32, under quote 3. While showing I agree with Esaias in general on the idea of uniformity of belief on the basics but highlighting Eph4.13 showing disagreement on some things. I have yet to see Esaias showing agreement with me on this, or showing agreement that He6 contains a list of first principles. You won't be seeing him do so - don't hold your breath. If there is no agreement between us, on what is plainly scriptural (Eph4.13, He6) then there may be no point to proceed in the discussion. Here's your out, if you are looking for an easy one. It will save you coming up with counter-arguments to my points, which you now fail to do.

Did you hear the drum beat? Its the drum beat which is said to come from 28 yrs of belief in co/unco, if Jesus and the apostles all believed in co/unco as it is now said they believed. It beats from 30 ad to 50-60 ad, when the book of Co was written. Let's listen to hear the drum beat from the Beginning, from before the Fall. Nothing but silence because nothing is said there that is the same as what 1Co11 is said to say. Let's listen for the drum beat from the time of the Expulsion till the Law. Nothing but silence, for...let's make it easy and say 2500 years, because there is no command then about co/unco similar to what is said about 1Co11. Let's hear the drum beat from Mt Sinai til Pentecost. Nothing but silence for 1550 years. Esaias would have you believe that the 4030 yrs of silence should be said to not be, because of the drum beat from 28 yrs under Jesus/apostles. Because it beat for 28 yrs, he says it should be believed that it really did beat for the 4050, even when we did not hear a peep. Don't believe Esaias. Believe the facts and come to different conclusions than he. The drums didn't beat with Jesus while on earth. The drums were silent during his earthly days of 3 yrs ministry. Paul should be said to be the first to hit the drum, doing so 50-60 ad. Don't build your doctrines on assumptions that say because Paul believed in co/unco, then every other NT preacher did too. If you do, you so do on assumption, not evidence. Beyond saying the apostles had uniformity of belief we have no evidence of anyone else, Jesus or the 12, of believing in co/unco. Believe your ears. The silence from Creation til 50-60 ad is deafening. Silence this time is evidence worth listening to.

Wrong, but Esaias would like it to be true.

True. But the interpretation of 1Co11 has proved to be one of the most difficult. Even apostolics, who have received the Sirit of Truth, have difficulty agreeing what to believe about it. It thus is hard to say what the authoritative teaching of the apostles is on this topic. Apostolics wait for a view of 1Co11 which all can say is authoritative.

I will continue to believe the Word of God. And Esaias will continue to use tricks of association, associating me with those who do not have apostolic faith, wanting to smear me with the brush they are smeared with. It is a trick he uses often when he doesn't make worthwhile counter-points. When asked why the OT scriptures shows no commands for co/unco similar to what modern apostolics say should be believed, he avoids an answer by saying the apostles were unified in their beliefs, and if Paul believed in co/unco then all had to have had to. Thats the best response to the question he can give - avoiding it.

Also avoided is the question why the pagan Gk women held to a practise for hundreds of years that is said (wrongly in my opinion) to be a command of God - uncut long hair.

It was first shown to be germaine in post 16.

Perhaps not. But when a word Paul uses has multiple definitions then we must know which definition he uses. If we don't, then we may never know what it is he teaches. You know this to be true without anyone saying it, making readers ask why Esaias speaks as he does? This is not rocket science.

Don says:

Good eye. You caught what I missed. I mispoke. I had been responding to Amanah who speaks of "timeless scriptural principles" in post36. You got me. I've egg on my face. Most anyone reading past the faux pas will see that I've corrected myself without knowing of my initial mispoke and wouldn't have pointed out an error, having seen me correct myself.

Not so, but to bring an understanding which all can agree on, having a view that fills voids which other views fail to do.

Don says:

Esaias responds:

It stands to reason that if it is believed that all women are commanded to have a cover, that the representative of all women, the first woman, should have been commanded also. When this isn't seen it calls into question whether it is commanded (vs expected to be done). If the Beginning alone did not show this command, then it might be overlooked. What is known is no command is seen in Innocence, Conscience, Law times. You should take the time to prove this wrong, being easy to do if true. This is a period of some 4033 yrs. The absence of a command during this long period of time calls into question your contention that woman would have been commanded so. If you don't contend that she was commanded then why respond as you did?

To say Paul commands in 1Co 11 calls into question his understanding of things. He is a scholar of the OT, who demonstrates willingness to die for truth. His only scripture is the OT and from it he draws the values he believes are worth dying for. These scriptures contain no command similar to what some apostolics say is commanded. If his beloved book does not command then why would he now say to the Co that God commands? It would call into question his reasoning ability. The OT shows no commands for co/unco. Better to see him agreeing with the OT - God does not command co/unco

Esaias apparently makes parting allegations, letting them dangle, hoping that all will agree, indicating that he will not be heard from again. Let's hope that he re-appears because he has great insight and vast knowledge. Let's hope that he actually uses it and attempts to provide weighty counter-points which are deeper than: Don's in error. Don's got absurd ideas.

What he said about the unity of apostlic belief was weighty, but not entirely true because they didn't agree on everything, as Eph4.13 shows. Esaias fails to show in detail what they uniformly agree on, seemingly not agreeing that He 6 is that list. Co/unco is not on it.

.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Hey Don, if you want to rebuke me do it out here in public. Don't send me love letters through PM.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I like this definition. Have you checked a lexicon?

True

True, but many men also take extreme measures to hide their baldness as long as possible. Did someone say Trump?

And some proudly as a man will be bald. It is hard to generalize.

True to a point. Plz see page 29 of my commentary.

I appreciate your humour.

.

[donfriesen1]

Holes found in the uncut long interpretation of 1Co11.2-16. What the majority of apostolics believe of 1Co11 is herein labelled: uncut long.

1. Paul is said by uncut long to be talking about the tradition of co/unco in v2. How could a tradition of co/unco have developed during the OT when it was never commanded there? It is not logical to believe it to be just a NT tradition.

2. Paul says: v4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. And why does a man's covered head dishonor God? Paul gives the answer in v7 ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God. Is it then not seen that the dishonour is, because the image of God is covered? It is a logical conclusion which is contrary to established theological views of the location of the image of God. It says the image of God is in Man's spiritual parts and not in the flesh. Because the majority of apostolics say that it is the long hair alone (without any other events) that dishonours God, it must then be seen that it comes from covering the image of God seen in the flesh. Concluding as uncut long does shows the image of God in the flesh, which is a silly thought.

3. Man and woman are equally the image of God. If a man's covered head (alone, without any other events) dishonours God then a woman's covered head should also be thought to dishonour God.

4. Holders of uncut long do not acknowledge that v5,6 refers to the veil, when the lexicographer says it does.

5. With man and woman being equals as the image of God, it would be thought that both should have a symbol for showing respect to God's order of authority. The uncut long view only addresses a symbol regarding the woman.

6. Condensed to its simplist form for the woman, the uncut long view shows what's most important for her is uncut hair, as opposed to being covered. Paul's focus is on the cover.

7. Condensed to its simplist, the uncut long view shows a woman's cover to be a spiritual cover, while the man's is a physical cover. As both equally the image of God it would be expected that there would congruency applied to the equals.

8. Paul says v13 Judge among yourselves, and v14 Does not even nature itself teach. If Paul commands from God then no appeals to nature or the ways of Man would be needed.

9. Uncut long says v15 shows an exchanging of the veil for uncut long hair. It is not logical that God would exchange an established social practise with a spiritual practice. If anything, the non-sinful social practise would remain unchanged and a spiritual practice added on top of it.

10. There are no commands found for co/unco from Creation till Paul. That this is true shouts something. Anyone not listening should remove the ear plugs.

11. Why does the pagan Gk have a word and a practise in their society, (komao -long uncut hair), which shows them using it for hundreds of years, when what they've been practising is said by uncut long to be a command of God? Does not compute.

My commentary deals with the holes in more detail, also giving a view of 1Co11 without these holes.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618642]

There really is no need to go further.

This sounds like goodbye. If so, then thx for your previous inputs.

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.

Plz, I had hoped you would at least critique what I call holes, some of which are shown in post 47. You again state opinions without providing evidence to prove your points. What you say here in that paragraph is again just opinion.

It is as easy for me to say I am apostolic as for you to say you are apostolic. It is as easy for me to say you take the wrong first step as for you to say I take the wrong first step. Doing so proves nothing by evidence and is unprofitable for a meaningful discussion.

What is in play here, by my allegations of the holes seen in uncut long, hasn't been addressed by close examination.

Instead, it is said I'm clearly not apostolic. Therefore anything I might say can be disregarded without explanation or examination. This not the spirit of a debate. This may be described as rejection based on bigotry.

big·ot. Noun. A person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. (I'd add to this defn "someone who is not seen as a member of a particular group".)

I've shown I agree that the apostles had a remarkable uniformity of belief on the essentials of He6; and that co/unco isn't on that list. I've shown that the NT preachers didn't agree on every minor point Eph4.13. Co/unco could be one point of disagreement. Any not agreeing on minor points should still be considered apostolic when agreeing on the major points - which I do agree on.

My views aren't even examined but cast out anyway. I don't blame anyone not wanting to take the time to critique my points because it would be time consumming. But to reject and smear them without examination because they are wrongly thought not to be apostolic smacks of bigotry.

Esaias sets himself up as the authority of thought which all should be compared to. If you don't agree on Esaias' defn of apostolic then you aren't apostolic. If you aren't apostolic then you aren't worth consideration, fit to be ignored.

Oh, well. We only have control of one, the one under our hat.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This is proving to be a thread which is a hot potatoe no one wants to touch. It uses logic which exposes errors in established apostolic thought that are either 1. so convincing that no one can think of anything to say against them; 2 so illogical that they aren't worth replying to.

. Many early NT Christians were converted Jews. The traditions and customs they held as Jews to a large extent would have followed them after their conversion. It is logical to see co/unco as an OT tradition had it been commanded there. That it was not then raises doubts that it was a tradition, vs a custom. It is not logical to think that co/unco would only be commanded in the NT, when the players, (God, man, woman) existed whether in or outside of covenants.

For this reason uncut long must be examined and modified. The way it is construed it produces clashes in theology.

. This is another reason why uncut long must be examined and modified. Logic stares someone in the face, demanding an accountability for conclusions which don't fit. Are men and women dissimilar? Of course but not in the image of God. And it is the image of God which Paul refers to.

Proper respect to knowledge must be maintained or it is seen that truth is ignored (even if it is non-scriptural truth). No truth-seeker purposely ignores truth, or hidden unseemly motives are exposed.

Any Biblical view of any topic should be seen to cover all the bases. That's how truth works when it really is truth with a capital T. It covers all the bases and answers questions without confusion. When uncut long doesn't address the need for man to show respect to God's order of authority by a symbol, it raises questions causing confusion. Is the absence of long hair really a symbol showing this respect? Is 'not having something' the way symbols usually work? Don't symbols work by their presence and not their absence?

Beware lest any cheat you through philosophy Paul says. Things can look logical unless examined closely. The uncut long view changes what Paul says for the woman from cover to uncut. It looks good but changes Paul's focus.

The same rules should be applied to all players in the same game. This only makes sense.

God is often seen commanding and not giving an explanation as to why he commands. He commands, and lets Man figure out the why. Paul in 1Co11 refers to what comes from Man's instincts and gives these appeals to it because the source of instincts is not clearly seen, being found hidden within Man's nature. We only know of instincts of Man because of observations of Man's actions. If it weren't so then we may never know of them, when hidden within Man. Paul makes necessary attempts to show the source of Man's co/unco actions by these appeals because they come from a hidden part of Man, and not from commands of God.

Paul elsewhere in 1Co tells the Co Christian to stay as they are. 1Co7.17-24. It is a principle that also applies elswhere. It could be concluded that this would include customs. Therefore it is wrong to think that Paul wants to replace a existing Co custom of the veil with a tradition of long hair. The idea of replacing it is called into question, not that Paul doesn't want a woman to have long hair.

. Paul bases arguments put forward in 1Co11 from the first chapters of Genesis. If that is his scriptural foundation then it is logical to presume that commands similar to what are believed to come from 1Co11 would also be seen there. That they aren't seen anywhere in the OT raises questions which should be answered. The instincts view attempts to answer those questions.

This fact, along with what scholars say is the practise of co/unco seen in many pagan nations in many eras, should speak loudly that co/unco comes from instincts.The pagan world is far from the hearing or obeying of any commands of God. This is especially true when no commands for co/unco are seen in the OT scriptures.

Because I speak other than the majority does, I am then called into question. What's wrong with this guy who seemingly opposes established doctrine everyone holds? Instead of calling into question this individual's motivations/heart, what should be done is to disprove the individual's allegations. This is not/has not been done. Instead the insinuation that there is something wrong with the guys heart. Disprove the views and the allegations die. Simple.

The instincts view does not do away with any need to show respect to God's order of authority. It is a scriptural view which sees the sources of what Paul says in a different way, perhaps more scripturally sourced. Uncut long does not show sources in the OT for most of their thought, when it should. The OT is the only scripture Paul has.

.

[Esaias]

"This is proving to be a thread which is a hot potatoe no one wants to touch. It uses logic which exposes errors in established apostolic thought that are either 1. so convincing that no one can think of anything to say against them; 2 so illogical that they aren't worth replying to."