Going to see Stoneking tomorrow:

[Jeffrey]

TheLegalist: As I have said scholars are nice qoutes for insight but they really mean nothing.

Isn't insight "something?" How can they mean nothing? Your contributions are a less-educated version of scholarly input just the same. Should I also conclude your participation "means nothing?" I don't get that.

Absolute speculation and total assumption he is dealing with culture
...yeah 1 Cor 11:7 is all about culture instead of standing before God in his position of authority?

Paul draws on a transcendent principle to make his case for particulars (in many other arguments he makes as well). It's the particular that has cultural verbiage. Scholars may be divided over what the issue was in the Corinthian church (though I haven't read one outside of Hazelwood that even considers uncut hair), but more are united that this is a culturally sensitive situation that Paul approaches with principles concerning propriety. Paul is reinforcing something they are already doing, and in his true-to-form Hillel-like hermeneutic, he splashed around with different water colors here.

1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

given... divine aspect by God who is the giver.

See Aquila's note on this. He brings it home.

He never references culture at all. He does not appeal to a issue at hand. He is not rebuking here but affirming positively traditions he already has laid down and expounding on them or reiterating them. The context actually shows he is praising them.

Are you looking for him to literally say "this is cultural and in 200 years it may not make sense!" ? Expounding on traditions he has already laid down? Where do you get that from? Maybe traditions already in the church at the time (which my pro-veil brothers and sisters insist).
.

Please show me any rebuke concerning this issue.

Well, let's see v2 starts off with "I praise you" and then we get into this propriety at worship. v17 starts off with "In the following directives, I have no praise for you." I'd call that rebuke. As manys scholars who studied this Greek here have stated, his tone turns much more snappy and stinging. Look at his rhetoric in v22 for another example! I'd throw in vv27-29 as specific examples of rebuke language as well.

Does Paul argue nature? Does Paul argue order of creation? Seems he doesn't need Mosaic LAW to argue his teaching. Thus this argument is faulty. Not saying "never ever cutting" is the issue" Allowing to grow long though is. Which does in part mean not to cut for a time.

That makes no sense at all, TL. If something is so clear cut in nature, there would be a lawful precedent. If Paul is pointing backward to a tradition, history would be replete with examples of this. This attitude toward hair is not in Jewish history, nor in Gentile history. The idea that any of the women even had their hair cut short is unthinkable at this time in Corinth. All women during this time period had long hair. Every statue, every bust, every artistic work discovered in the first century, none of them show women with short hair. I know some have offered that temple prostitutes had their heads shaven, but that evidence is even scanty. What is definitely known is that women at this time, both Jew and Gentile, wore head coverings, and that this was exclusive to women.

That is debatated. Seems Paul made many new rules by doing away with others which is to make a rule in itself. He also expounded on many things which is teaching and application of law. So he does make rules... LOL!

Care to give examples of Paul's exclusive rules? Paul was a Jew. If he taught something, it would have been part of his Jewish heritage.

To dive into a pericope making huge assumptions that this issue is about hair because of a couple references to hair, to then create an uncut hair doctrine that separates and divides churches and believers from other believers (not to mention HMH nonsense) is utter madness. This isn't just a "it could mean this" it's the crown jewel of a larger percentage of Oneness Pentecostals.