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

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by DoesNotCompute

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.

Don wants me to "rebut" this post number 47 for some reason, which regards "holes found in the uncut/long view of 1 Cor 11". Yet he seems to have forgotten that I do not hold to some "uncut/long interpretation". While I agree that nature teaches that long hair on a man is a shame, but on a woman it is a glory, I do not believe that is Paul's intended subject of discourse. Rather, Paul is teaching that men ought to be uncovered and women ought to be covered when praying or prophesying. So why Don demands that I address a post that really doesn't have to do with anything *I* have stated is not clear to me. But let's humour him for a moment.

1. Paul is not talking about "the tradition of uncut/long".

2. Don's second point is a mess, I can't even figure out exactly what he is trying to say. It seems to me he is trying to say Paul is being illogical in asserting the man ought not to cover his head because he is the image and glory of God, because "logic" somehow demands the image and glory of God is not associated with the physical man's physical head? I have no idea what hole Don fell into here, but I can hear his voice echoing from the bottom, vaguely.

3. Don directly contradicts the apostle. Paul specifically makes a distinction between the effects and consequences and implications of the covering of the man and the covering of the woman. I'll stick to the apostle instead of joining Don down in his hole he is digging.

4. Once again, I am not a "holder of uncut/long", so...

5. Don making up theology again down in that hole of his. Besides, I don't care what "holders of uncut/long" do or don't do, I'm not one of them.

6. See 5.

7. Nonsense. This is just Don making things up about other people's beliefs, without regard to what they actually believe. People who believe the woman's covering is spiritual, in whatever form it takes, also believe the man's "uncovering" to be spiritual as well. Don should take some geometry classes before talking about "congruence".

8. Don assumes things outside the scope of his expertise. He presumes that "if Paul is giving a command then no appeals to nature are needed". Who says so? Don, that's who. Is he an authority on the subject? Of course not. Paul gives instruction, and appeals to nature to support the validity of his instruction. Just like he does in 1 Cor 12. He teaches about the manifold roles of the members of the church, and points them to observe how the human body operates, with various members each doing a different job. An appeal to nature is an illustration of the validity of his teaching here, and there as well.

9. Don talks a lot about "it is not logical that..." but never shows his logic. There is nothing illogical about "God exchanging a social practice with a spiritual practice", whatever that even means. Since I do not believe Paul is exchanging long hair in place of the covering, I will leave it to others to argue with him about that. But it is definitely not "illogical" for God to do that if He so chose to do that.

10. Don should remove his own ear plugs and listen to himself affirm that "God can command something ONCE and it can be ANYWHERE in Scripture".

11. Once again Don does not compute. I would ask him, "Why do pagan Greeks have a term for washing feet, which has been used for however long Greek has been around, when washing feet is in fact something commanded by Christ? They've been doing something commanded by Christ! Does not compute!"

Yep, Don does not compute.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618939] PART 1/2

Originally Posted by DoesNotCompute (by donfriesen1 and not by DoesNotCompute

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.


Esaias replies.

Don wants me to "rebut"

Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages: re·but /rəˈbət/ verb 1. claim or prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false.

this post number 47 for some reason, which regards "holes found in the uncut/long view of 1 Cor 11".

Yet he seems to have forgotten that I do not hold to some "uncut/long interpretation".

Esaias would have you believe that I think that post 47 only applies to the holders of uncut long, when I had said to him previously, post 111, that most of the points also applied to the veil view.

While I agree that nature teaches that long hair on a man is a shame, but on a woman it is a glory, I do not believe that is Paul's intended subject of discourse. Rather, Paul is teaching that men ought to be uncovered and women ought to be covered when praying or prophesying. So why Don demands that I address a post that really doesn't have to do with anything *I* have stated is not clear to me.

But let's humour him for a moment.

Thx for addressing my challenge.

1. Paul is not talking about "the tradition of uncut/long".

There is not a lot of depth or even length here. A man of your caliber should produce more to refute my many words.

Paul should not be thought to think of traditions of co/unco. Why? Because it doesn't make sense that he would praise them in v2 for keeping traditions of co/unco and then in the remaining verses teach them about what he has just praised them for being faithful to. In verse 3 he says 'But', which contrasts what is old (traditions) with what is new (what new thing he will now teach them about co/unco. Paul is the first in the NT to speak of this subject, writing in 50 - 60 ad). Had they been traditions of the OT carried forward into the NT, then we would see commands in the OT which had made them OT traditions. They may have been just NT traditions. But when no NT commands seen pre-Paul, this then casts some doubt that they are only NT traditions. These 3 things should lead to conclusions that Paul does not refer to a tradition of co/unco in v2.

2. Don's second point is a mess, I can't even figure out exactly what he is trying to say. It seems to me he is trying to say Paul is being illogical in asserting the man ought not to cover his head because he is the image and glory of God, because "logic" somehow demands the image and glory of God is not associated with the physical man's physical head? I have no idea what hole Don fell into here, but I can hear his voice echoing from the bottom, vaguely.

Perhaps a re-wording would be in order, which I will now attempt to do. Paul says in v4 that a man's covered head dishonours God. And why? The answer is in v7, he is the image of God. It appears that Paul says that the image of God is covered when the head is covered. The view which the majority of apostolics take agrees with this. Long hair dishonours God because it covers the head and the image of God, robbing God of proper glory. That the image of God is being covered by covering the head is a thought which is foreign to much of the Christian world's theology, which believe the image of God is in Man's spiritual parts and not the flesh. Are you with me so far, Esaias, or are we both in the pit of my echo chamber, shivering. Because it would be thought wrong to believe that the flesh is the location of the image of God, an adjustment must be made to what it is Paul is believed to be saying.

Does he believe that just because a man's head is covered that it dishonours God or does he believe that a covered head along with other circumstances are the reason? Why word the question like this? Because A) If Paul thinks that a covered head alone is the reason it dishonours, then we need to ask why he would say this. What does Paul know or see that leads him to say this? He loves the OT, the only Word he holds in his hands, the thing which helps form his thoughts and values. What does the OT show about a covered head dishonouring God. Has it ever shown a command for a man not to cover his head? Quote the reference now, for all who have looked, not finding it. Paul's Bible does not show that a covered head dishonours God in the way that uncut long says it - with just the presence of long hair. In fact the Book Paul loves, shows long-haired men greatly loved and used of God, even commanded to have long hair, which is the opposite to what we'd expect if God/the OT held the uncut long view. This should lead all to say that Paul would not conclude from by his Book, that a covered head alone brings dishonour to God. Added to that is this. When equals as the image of God, if a covered man dishonours God, then a covered woman dishonours God, if it is just the presence of long hair, alone without any other events, which detract from the glory of God. A view needs to be found which does away with this discrepancy. B) What is seen in the OT, the Book Paul gathers his values from, is many examples of men in shameful circumstances (shameful men do not bring proper glory to their God), covering their head. 2Sa15.30 is one of many examples. If Paul reads of these examples and forms his values from these many examples, which he would do as an OT rabbi/scholar, then what is seen in v4,7 would align with what is as a scriptural base, which scriptural base the uncut long hair view does not have outside of misinterpreted 1Co11. It has no OT support. Having OT commands and examples should have led to a search for a view which is congruent with it. And why does an OT man/woman cover the head when shamed? The same reason we do, wanting to cover the face when shamed. Out instincts tell us to so. It is not done as a command but as a response to instincts. (The ancient response to shame to cover the head, the veil/mantle, may have been by convenience because of their clothing, when a covering of the face may have sufficed.) Which of these views has the most scriptural backing? Find it and you'll find why Paul uses such few words with the Co, who were as well aware of the response to instincts as Paul was. The knowledge of these instincts was common to both, which necessitated no lengthy explanation by Paul, because they all were familiar with this as humans. Because Man is made in the image of God, Man should reflect at all times the glory of his creator. A covered man when shamed does not. A man with long hair is similarly covered as a veil would do. The cover of the veil was the symbol of the shameful event, and to wear something similar by long hair portrays a similar symbol, but not by command - by instinct. If the OT shows this symbol by instincts then those in the NT should follow suit. Paul should not be seen to command against long hair, because the Book he loves doesn't, but does show the presence of the instinct, which Esaias mocks and says isn't there.

3. Don directly contradicts the apostle.

Well, maybe. I did put in a little qualifier by using the word 'if'. If you'd like to send me to the pit because you missed the if... then who am I to argue. I am not a giant, able to defend myself against one who is.

Paul specifically makes a distinction between the effects and consequences and implications of the covering of the man and the covering of the woman. I'll stick to the apostle instead of joining Don down in his hole he is digging.

[COLOR="black"]That man and women are equally the image of God places them on equal footing in some regard. That they are unequal physically has no contention. That they are unequal socially has no contention. How is equality as the image of God demonstrated in regard to respect for the order of God's authority? If it is by commands, then where are the commands for all the people who lived previous to Paul and the 1Co11 words? What is contended by various views is that commands are required, which should be maintained to keep them in right relationship with God. Some contend the instinct, properly regarded, should be sufficient.

continued in 2/2 see post 206

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

PART 2/2. Continued from post 205.

I've tried to show that the instincts which are seen in both Ge3.16 and 2Sa15.30 are placed by God, and that the only Book Paul holds and loves, the OT, does not show a command for long hair or veil on a woman, nor a command against a covering for a man. The instincts placed by God were done by God for a reason, and the best for Man is to do them as designed by God. This does not mean that they are commands. When the instincts are properly regarded they result in seeing both man and women giving regard socially to God's order of authority by symbols. Giving regard to God by social symbols is a spiritual value. Symbols are spiritual values. Voila, this agrees with them being equally the image of God, as seen in the spiritual parts of Man. It only makes sense that both male and female should be said to show proper regard to the order of authority and for both to do so with symbols when they are equally the image of God. This is accomplished socially by proper response to instincts. A woman's relationship to her husband is largely a social relationship. It should be said to be seen to come from instincts because God has not ever commanded, until 1Co11 is misinterpreted so. When 1Co11 is misinterpreted, as uncut long and the veil view do, it leads to many rabbit holes, and should not be done so. Rather a view should be held, which doesn't lead to rabbit holes. This is found in the instincts view. The instinct view agrees with the facts which are seen in the whole Bible. The veil view and uncut long do not.[/COLOR]

And Esaias takes a pass on point 4. And we agree that the lex shows the custom of the veil in 1Co11, and Paul uses the veil-custom word, don't we Esaias?

All people who read 1Co11 make up a theology of it, even the veil view is made up. Esaias attempts to smear me when using words with loaded connotations - making up. Should Esaias get a pass on point 5, or not? Does holding the veil view give the man a pass from showing symbols? My opinion is no. Perhaps Esaias will respond.

The conclusions of uncut long, show that what is most important for the woman is whether she has uncut hair, vs having hair long enough to cover. Paul speaks of both long hair and cover.

Pardon me for disagreeing. I have not made this up in my deep, dark, echoing pit. The uncut long view says that the moment a woman determines that she will never cut her hair is when she covered. She may only at that moment have 1" hair, yet she is believed to be covered by the determination of her will. This is the uncut's long view in its simplist form, for the woman.

True, and accomplished only by an actual physical uncovering. Not so for the woman in the uncut long view. Boiled down to it, for the woman it need not actually cover, just be uncut. Thus unequal rules are applied to those who are equally in the image of God. One is accomplished physically, the other not entirely physically - by obedience to what is said to be a command - be uncut, not covered.

Education is a great thing.

If God commands a thing then no other appeals to anything are required. God said, 'Have no other gods before me'. He appeals to nothing other than his will. He gives no reasons. Just do it. If Paul would command in 1Co11 then he needs no excuses of reason, or appeals to nature, or anything other than what God wants. He certainly wouldn't ask the Co to judge among yourselves to see if your human opinions agree. When the Beginning, when the Age of Innocence, when the Age of Conscience, when the Age of the Law, when Jesus says nothing of co/unco, when the other apostles say nothing about co/unco, it shows that a command is unlikely. Co/unco is a custom which is practised in Israel without command, which same custom is also practiced by many pagan nations of many times, showing congruency with the idea that Paul refers to a custom and not command. I actually was awake for the geometry class, and we wonder if you were.

Amen, so true.

Well said. Good point. And then, what about judge among yourselves and that other long sentence seen above? Reader, don't hold your breath for an answer. Esaias would already have given an answer to this because this isn't his first rodeo. This is not the first time it has been put forward by me.

I thought my comment showed this as self-evident, that nothing further need be said to anyone reading. Obviously not, that I need to expand my words. The readers thank you for pointing it out and giving opportunity to explain.

How can you object to something you can't understand? Does not compute. The social practice of the veil is exchanged by the spiritual practise, in the uncut long view, according to its erroneous interpretation of v15. They believe that the word 'for' should be understood to mean 'instead of, in exchange'. Long hair is exchanged for the veil. While this meaning of 'for' is one of acceptable correct meanings, it is illogical to do so. See my commentary, post 1, which Esaias has indicated he has read. Pages11-15; p.32 @Someone is distorting; p.46 @para 2; p.116@ Found in Apostolic lit.

You take a pass here as well.

No? Not illogical to tell Christians that a custom practised for centuries has now become a tradition for you to hold by command? I'd say, its my opinion, that God would not transform a custom into a tradition/command for the Christian. (See 1Co7.17-24, where he tells the Co to keep the social standing they were called in. If he tells them to keep thier social position, then the keeping of a custom is not far behind, is it?) Instead, he would tell the Christian to maintain the customs of their country, and I'll give you an additional command to follow, if so. In Ro13 he tells the Ro Christian to keep gov't laws, which are only laws of society (from a governing body). Do what society tells you to do, he says in so many words, but for command sake? No for conscience sake. Paul does the same in 1Co11 with the veil custom and their custom of long hair. Thus, it would not make sense to say a custom has been exchanged for a spiritual command.

But, you know, the air in this pit may not be very good down here. It, along with the echos and darkness may be affecting my thinking. I may need to get some good air up around the gods where Esaias resides. Readers, you may notice I sometimes say nice things about Esaias, in all sincerity, because I think them to be true. And Esaias usually says bad things about me. What motivates him? What motivates me to make negative comments of him, as I've just done? The snide comments he makes, makes me respond in kind. My first preference is not to make any comments such as these. Criticize opinions? Of course. Of course. Necessary.

And so Esaias makes a non-response response. Esaias doesn't want to hear it, nor respond to a good point. Instead he diverts. Oh well.

Hey, what happened to your not commenting on uncut long?

Your referencing leads to an examination of both practises. Jesus showed footwashing as an example that there would not be big shots in his Kingdom. Is this how the pagan Greek practiced it and did Jesus then borrow it into the Church (if you believe it should be followed like communion)? Or did Jews also practice foot washing as a social custom and Jesus used a common practise (also of many nations) for illustrative purposes. You may be wrong to suggest that Jesus borrowed from pagan Greeks. He borrowed from Jews. Do you have evidence to show otherwise?

Does the comparison for hair stand up to the same scrutiny? The Hebraic Jews used Greek language for everyday life. That the LXX exists and the NT was written in Gk testifies to this. Paul uses a Gk word which reflects a long held Gk practice. Their women practiced long uncut hair. Because of this borrowing of language, Paul is said by uncut long to be teaching/commanding uncut long hair. It thus is shown that Paul turns a custom into command. (What isn't determined by the word komao, is whether uncut means so in a strict sense or in a practical sense. Most would see the Gk using it in a practical sense. That they had long hair didn't prevent trimming of it, which the uncut long prevents because it desires to be technical and not practical in its definition.)

Yep, Don does compute and does it well. Esaias fails to convincingly show errors of my reasoning. What should be done when truth is presented? Should it be accepted or rejected? Wise persons give it serious slow examination and acceptance when not refuted.

[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."

[Esaias]

"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."

I'm going to try this one more time, Don. The bolded part of your statement, which I quoted above, is the point that needs to be examined.

1. Why do you think "it is logical to presume that commands similar to what are believed to come from 1 Cor 11 would also be seen there"? What law of logic demands such a thing?

2. Do you believe that there are no commands of God to found in Scripture after Deuteronomy? If so, WHY?

3. Do you believe every command of God must be repeated at least twice, in two separate books, by two separate authors, in order to be valid? If so, WHY? Who says so?

4. Is it more logical to think that women ought to be covered, and men uncovered, when praying or prophesying, because of the reasons given by Paul in 1 Cor 11? Or rather because of some unknown unstated undefined "instinct" that you are hypothesizing is somehow involved?

5. Do you believe there was a uniformity of approved practice in the 1st century apostolic churches of God? Or do you rather believe different churches "did things differently" and the apostles were all cool with that?

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618766] Part 1/2.

Quote fron donfriesen1: "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."

I'm going to try this one more time, Don. The bolded part of your statement, which I quoted above, is the point that needs to be examined.

OK. But I'd say that all 11 hole-points I've made should be examined. I encourage you to do so, for yourself if not also for those you influence. Why not address all or at least some of the other points, too?

Or you could just keep posting mocking emojis, per post 50. Doing so shows you as elevating yourself to a place of authority made for comparison for others to line up to. Those failing to meet your comparison-points are then worthy to be mocked. And who is it that elevated you to this position but self?

The response from a dignified person would be to show how these holes are wrong. You refuse to do so. That you don't when you so often do in AFF, using your great knowledge base (I'm not being facetious here) is telling. Other readers of these threads see your lack of response here and wonder why someone such as you has not more to say here. I've made serious allegations, showing evidence in scripture and logic, and the best which someone of your experience comes up with is an emoji. You can do better but perhaps you can't, evidenced by your lack of responses. You don't because if you had something serious to respond with you would already have done so. But don't give up yet. You've got it in you to bring it forth.

1. Why do you think "it is logical to presume that commands similar to what are believed to come from 1 Cor 11 would also be seen there"? What law of logic demands such a thing?

A I'll call it the law of consistency. If God commands Italians to be saved by Ac2.38, then it would be inconsistent that he would command the Japanese to be saved another way.

Some apostolics, I'd guess a majority, believe that God commands something in 1Co11. It is in regards to proper respect for his authority as creator. As creator he expects Man to maintain respect for the order of authority he has put in place.

When was the order of authority first put in place? It is logical to assume it was put in place the moment of A&E were created. Did God command it then? We have no record of God commanding it in the Beginning. There is no record from the Beginning that God commanded respect for him to be shown by the keeping of symbols, but it is said, by some, that such a command appears in 1Co11. But it is logical that the showing of symbols was expected in the Beginning if it was shown required in 1Co11, which 1Co11 shows. Yielding to the forces which the instinct gives (in this case, the woman's instincts to be nice looking) results in doing that which the man likes (by instinct he likes visually pretty things). By following her instincts a woman is shown showing respect by symbols (long hair) that which her man likes. Long hair shows she respects her man's likes. It is the symbol that was possible to be shown used in the Beginning. The opposite is also true. Any woman wanting to diss her man can do it by denying the long hair she knows he likes to see. Long hair thus symbolizes her respect for her man. Long hair from yielding to the force of the instinct is the symbol which shows she regards the order of authority God instituted without command.

Some things need no command yet are still understood, when God gives the ability to rationalise an understanding of it without a command. It is rational that Man reverence God. Man clearly knows this even without being commanded. It is known by rational abilities. The reason the story was recorded as it was in the Beginning is to show Man the source of reverence comes not by command but that which comes from deductive reasoning abilities. Adam and Eve verbally passed down their story, to share what had happened because it was important for them to do so. Alternatively, if you believe like some do, that God revealed it to Moses while on Mt Sinai, then it is God who reveals what happened at the Beginning, doing so because he felt it was important to tell the story the way it happened. Man there deduced reverence for God's order of authority. It was not known to them first by a command.

The topic of respect for God is not a light topic, because it also involves the glory of God, which is Man's primary purpose in life. Yet it had not been commanded in the Beginning, before the Fall, nor was it commanded immediately after the Fall. There is no record of any command for something this important, yet it is still logical to assume respect is expected, even without a command. The same for the glory of God. It was not commanded in the Beginning but rational to think it was expected without command.

There are no Biblical records for commands of respect to be shown by symbols in the Ages following: Conscience and Law - a huge period of time. The Law would have been a logical place for commands to now appear, for the nation God chooses to be a kingdom of priests, set at the crossroads of the world. Moses is seen commanding for God many, many laws having to do with externals/the physical. None are seen from Moses which are similar to commands which are said by many to be commanded in 1Co11. Strangely, not seen.

Man then exists for over 4000 yrs, without a command for respect for God's order of authority. Enter Paul and the NT. Paul is interpreted by some apostolics to be now commanding that which has not been commanded for 4000 years. The existence of a new covenant does nothing to change what had been expected by rational thought - respect for God's order of authority. The new covenant doesn't change one iota that Man is still expected to show respect to God's order of authority. It had been expected, without command, for 4000 yrs and continues to be expected in the NT. If any Man connected to God doesn't show this respect then they have massive issues of intellect or are controlled by expectations other than from God's rational ways.

Paul is a scholar and lover of all things having to do with the Word of God. The only Word he has are the OT scriptures. They form the values he believes and lives by. Had Paul seen commands for showing respect for God's authority in the Beginning, or in Conscience, or in Law, then we would rightly expect that he would now command the same in the new covenant. But the expert of the OT he is does not see commands anywhere there and he does not now command for the NT differently than what is shown in the OT, emulating what he knows to be the principles of God shown in the Beginning. Respect for the order of God's authority in the NT is by expectation and not by command, the same as it was in the Beginning and the Ages after it.

It thus is logical to say that Paul doesn't command.

B It is illogical to think that commands for co/unco would only exist for the NT. All the parts are equal in any Age - in the qualities they possess in relation to the topic. God hasn't changed. Man hasn't changed. Woman hasn't changed. The expected ways of relationships and expected respect are the same in any Age. If God has not commanded in the Beginning, (the logical place for the first appearance of commands on this topic, if anywhere) then what would compel a later needed addition of a command? None of the qualities of any player in their relationships has changed, showing a need to now command that which wasn't commanded then. It is known now as it was known then. It is a rationally deduced expectation without being commanded.

C The absence of commands for 4000 yrs speaks something. All need to listen to what this silence says. To ignore by saying that absence doesn't speak is unresponsible.

2. Do you believe that there are no commands of God to found in Scripture after Deuteronomy? If so, WHY?

I do believe that God has commanded after Deuteronomy. God has commanded after Deut differently than he had done there, and also the same, depending on the time and the circumstance. Plz explain why you ask this question because it doesn't seem to fit into this discussion.

3. Do you believe every command of God must be repeated at least twice, in two separate books, by two separate authors, in order to be valid? If so, WHY? Who says so?

No. God may speak once and it is truth, even though not ever repeated. But God graciously does repeat himself often, allowing for more surety and clarity of belief.

1Co11 is interpreted in a certain way by uncut long. This interpretation is then viewed as the interpretation that all previous God-fearers held from the Beginning onward. Where is the evidence that all previous God-fearers held this interpretation? It isn't there. By this method, the usual order of things is reversed. Usually the past (OT) is seen as laying the foundation for the future (NT). With the misinterpretation of 1Co11 it is seen otherwise. The NT is the foundation for what is said to be believed in the OT. Where is the OT evidence of co/unco seen, laying the foundation for the NT doctrine of co/unco? It isn't there. What needs to be done is to find a view of 1Co11 which is in agreement with the OT evidence, putting the horse (OT) before the cart (NT).

The instinct view does this. What is seen is that many peoples over many times practised co/unco without a command from God. If no commands are seen in the OT then why do Jews practise co/unco? Scholars say that many pagans in many times practised co/unco. Pagans certainly don't practise co/unco from commands which aren't there, which they wouldn't have known even if they had been in the OT. The logical explanation is the practises came from God-instilled instincts. Sometimes, if something fits the story then it is true. Instincts explains what is seen in history. It doesn't explain all of history because people do not always follow their instincts.

Part 2/2 to follow.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

You can do better but perhaps you can't, evidenced by your lack of responses. You don't because if you had something serious to respond with you would already have done so.

I'll call it the law of consistency. If God commands Italians to be saved by Ac2.38, then it would be inconsistent that he would command the Japanese to be saved another way.

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.

]I do believe that God has commanded after Deuteronomy. God has commanded after Deut differently than he had done there, and also the same, depending on the time and the circumstance. Plz explain why you ask this question because it doesn't seem to fit into this discussion.

If God can command after Deuteronomy, then God can command in 1st Corinthians.

No. God may speak once and it is truth, even though not ever repeated.

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."

1Co11 is interpreted in a certain way by uncut long.

"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.

Where is the OT evidence of co/unco seen, laying the foundation for the NT doctrine of co/unco? It isn't there. What needs to be done is to find a view of 1Co11 which is in agreement with the OT evidence, putting the horse (OT) before the cart (NT).

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.

If no commands are seen in the OT then why do Jews practise co/unco?

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.

The logical explanation is the practises came from God-instilled instincts.

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.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Simply brilliant

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618773] PART1/2

So you're just making it up, then?

Yes, the name of the logic I used is made up. Whether I make a name up or take it from a professors book, it doesn't change the reality of the concept. If I'm at a party and see a group playing a game from a box I assume there are rules. If I walk across the room and see another group with the same box game, I think they will both be playing by the same rules. This is consistent logic.It is not taken from a book. It is the logic all take from life.

Ok, if that's how you want to roll. Your example however is not equivalent to the subject being discussed.

True. But most everybody reading it will get the drift behind the sentence,even if it doesn't come from a professor's book.

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.

The logic that most people use, will agree that, if Paul bases his arguments seen in 1Co11 on the first few ch's of Ge, then, if he commands in 1Co11 then these same commands would also be found in Ge. The players in both the Beginning and in 1Co11 are the same: God, man, woman. If the game is the same (it is - respect for God's order of authority) then the same rules would be applied in both places. They aren't, because the game at the Beginning doesn't show rules. That you proffer that God can command after Deut means you haven't gotten the concept yet. There are no rules shown at the Beginning. There are no commands for co/unco stated at the Beginning, the first time the game was played. Those who misinterpret 1Co11 say there are rules stated for the game - commands for co/unco. That there aren't any commands shown at the Beginning demands a logical explanation. One logical explanation could be that Paul's words are misinterpreted, that he doesn't command in 1Co11. The view that he doesn't command is supported by the evidence seen in the OT (the only Word Paul has and reads and bases his thoughts on): There are no commands in the Beginning, nor during the Age of Conscience, nor the whole time of the Age of Law, up until Paul's misinterpreted words. But I could be mistaken about the commands not being in the OT. I'm human. Plz point out any commands from Ge to Paul, which are similar to what is believed by some to be from 1Co11. But don't use a lot of time searching because they aren't there.

Alternatively, one might say that there was no game played at the Beginning, that God had no expectation that any must show respect for his order of authority. Following this reasoning then shows the reason no rules are shown at the Beginning is because there was no game. This would lead to the ridiculous assumption that somewhere in the middle of history God introduces the game called 'Show respect For God's Order of Authority' and in the middle of history now shows commands for co/unco. This is a ridiculous idea no one should buy into. But that is what is said if one believes that Paul is the first to command co/unco.

Paul says to beware, do not to be spoiled through philosophy. Philosophical arguments can be made which lead down long rabbit holes with many branch tunnels, leading to feelings of lostness for any who enter. If the philosophy that apostolics hold of 1Co11 is a misinterpretation, then there will be rabbit holes with branch tunnels. As I've pointed out in a previous post, I've shown at least 11 holes, which no one has filled yet. Well at least not to my satisfaction.

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.

But by example the Law shows those who minister the Law should be financially supported by those receiving the benefits of it. It is not without some form of support by command - titheing. The principle of this support for supporting ministers of God is the same regardless which covenant the Word is ministered in. The Word is shown giving them some form of this support. What isn't shown in the Word previous to Paul is any form of support for the misinterpretation of 1Co11. That it isn't there demands that the misinterpretation be examined and modified to bring an interpretation which is in agreement with the evidence shown. The principle of respect for God's order of authority is in effect whether there is a covenant in effect or not. Respect for God's order of authority operates outside of, or rather along side of covenants as a separate concept, doing so without commands for adherence. This is shown by how it is presented by the Word of God at the Beginning, the foundation of Paul's arguments. He should be seen to believe in, and apply the same principles he sees in the Beginning, to the arguments he uses in 1Co11. God did not command co/unco at the Beginning, neither does Paul in 1Co11. If so, then Paul is consistent, in harmony with Ge.

Your "law of consistency" is not an actual law of logic.

Agreed, but it is a logic which all Men use in everyday living.

Consistency means harmony of parts to one another.

Thus, the understanding that Paul is said to be commanding, is out of harmony with the whole of the Bible. You've proven the point I make. That the Bible as a whole previous to 1Co11 does not command co/unco shows the interpretation of 1Co11 that some hold is out of harmony.

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.

I'd invite you to provide some specifics. By not doing so, you continue to use methods which say to others 'you're wrong' but don't provide details of their error. I'll now do the same, for all readers to take home with them. You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong.

Does anyone have any idea what Esaias is wrong about after that charade? No.

If God can command after Deuteronomy, then God can command in 1st Corinthians.

Of course, but why do you mention kindergarten stuff? We are way past kindergarten talk. The question that has been put out is 'Does God command in 1Co11 when he hasn't in the Beginning?' All the parts are the same and their relationships to one another also the same. If he commands in one place then he would command the same in all places, to be consistent. That he didn't command co/unco in the Beginning, nor in any other time before Paul, calls into question whether Paul commands in 1Co11. It is inconsistent, out of harmony, in the light of all the previous scripture which doesn't command, to see him now do so in 1Co11. Plz put something out that is more than kindergarten in flavour. You should be able to do so.

Then God may command in 1st Corinthians and it is valid even though it may not be repeated anywhere else in the Scripture.

The question isn't 'could he have?' but rather 'did he?'

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."

By your line of reasoning, that it is Ok that God is seen not commanding co/unco in the Beginning, leads all readers to conclude that you believe that co/unco wasn't in effect in the Beginning because God did not command it there. Is that what you want readers to believe, that Paul bases his arguments for co/unco on a portion of scripture which doesn't also command those there to follow it, like he is now commanding? Does that make sense to your logical mind? Not to mine. Do you not want God to be seen that he is consistent in his methods? Co/unco exists outside of covenants, having come into existence before any covenant, even before the Adamic Covenant. It came into existence without a command asking for it to be honoured, being an inferred expectation. To be consistent God would continue to use the same method, using the same principle first seen used in the Beginning, not commanding something later which is first understood to be in effect by inferred expectation.

"Uncut long"? Who is that?

If you've read my commentary (you've inferred you have) then you know what this means. You again now use minor pointless jabs which contribute nothing to a discussion, wasting everyones time, thinking to score points from something as solid as air. Why not use the abilities you have instead of empty arguments like this?

Anyways, Paul is teaching women are to wear a headcovering and men are to not wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying.

What this sentence doesn't give is an explanation without holes that all can receive without controversy. It is my hope that the instinct view will do so, after careful examination of its claims is shown that it contains no holes, that all can agree with its arguments.

continued in part 2/2

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618773]

Part2/2

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, but, but...the glory of God was seen by millions, leading the Jew on the Exodus journey. Everyday of Atonement the glory of God descended. At the dedication of the first Temple the priest's could not minister because the glory filled the Temple. Not a lot of hiding of glory going on here, is there? The glory of the NT was shown to a select few to confirm to them the revelation of a new way, the NT, when the Lord was transfigured before them. This glory-treasure the NT believer has in earthen vessells, hidden from view. It is an internal glory which is joy unspeakable but not witnessed by the eye. These small portions of the Word appear to speak opposite to that which you say. Certainly the NT way is the greater way but the glory is hidden fromeyes but not the understanding, which those who receive the Light see in their understanding.

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.

I hope people aren't laughing at what you just printed. You've just stated that there is an exception for the priest to do contrary to the principle which God had started in the Beginning, by a command of God. This fanciful exposition should be buried because it is out of harmony with what is seen in the Beginning. The Beginning reveals principles which are the foundations which all other thoughts should be compared to. You know this to be true.

Rather this. Paul speaks of that which hangs down the head, v4, the Gk defn of the En word covered. If the mitre really is as some depict it, it does not hang down the head. It sits atop the head. This doesn't consistently show disagreement with the thought that something which hangs down the head is a dishonouring event. Priests do nothing dishonouring when obeying God to wear a mitre because they do not cover by 'hangs down the head' as shamed dishonouring people do.

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.

Sure. Agreed to be true in a cultural/custom context, but not in a spiritual commanding context. The virgin daughter of Babylon had no contact with any command of God requiring a woman to veil herself. Even if the Jewess of that time was commanded to wear a veil (she wasn't ever) the Babylonian wouldn't have known of this command. The argument you put forward, as showing support that Paul commands Christians to veil, is specious because it refers only to the pagan Babylonian. Do better in the arguments you put forward because they don't put you in good light.

These are two old testament examples that are CONSISTENT with Paul's teaching concerning the headcovering practice of the churches of God.

I'll have to disagree that consistency has been maintained.

Jews don't follow the old testament, they follow the Talmud.

And the interpretations of the Talmud aren't taken from the Torah, are they, said facetiously? You here use a smoke screen. But why do you dodge the question? I presume it to be because you have no answer, otherwise you would have given it already. My answer to this simple question is: The Jew, along with many other nations in many times, practise co/unco, not from a command of God which isn't there (especially true for any pagan nation) but from following the impulses of God-given instincts. But, said facetiously, this might be too simple (grey) for people who desire things to be complicated by commands (wanting black and white rules). You've heard of the K.I.S.S. principle, no doubt. Sometimes the simplist explanation is the one to hold. I do, in the instinct view.

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.

Are you saying that the Jewess started a covering tradition in AD, in response to a Christian-woman-covering practise? It sounds like this is what you say by your few words. If so, then the co/unco tradition the OT woman practised, which you say v2 refers to, was dropped at sometime but taken up again in response to the Christian woman's practise. Is this what you now say? Whats your point by making this point? You appear to be lost in a rabbit hole.

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.

Plz provide a reference.

That is not a "logical explanation", it is only your hypothesis.

Well, hypothesises can be logical explanations. Why do you waste ink with things like this.

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.

It is logical to do so, and not illogical to do so, when using the understanding that God-given instincts are not commands of God though God-instilled. Instincts should not to be understood to be commands because they aren't authoritatively defined. Though ill-defined, when followed by the majority they become unwritten laws which should be heeded. Is it wise to act contrary to what the nature of Man tells him to do? If yes then we see it expressed in laws of abortion which 'OK's' people to act contrary to their instincts/nature. Man should follow and live by the God-given nature they have been given. It works best for all, if all follow that which God 'suggests by instincts'. Still, instincts aren't laws which must be followed at all times. God instills a mothering instinct in women, which some reject. God does not condemn them as sinners though acting contrary to God's intentions. God in fact is described as closing up the womb of some, contrary to his stated intentions that Man should multiply. If it is true that God instills co/unco within the nature of Man, which many apostolics contend is true, then he is seen commanding the Nazarite man and woman to act contrary to that which is natural for them to do. The Lord thus demonstrates that instincts are not commands which all must follow under threat of punishment for disobedience. The Lord thus commands contrary to the instincts which many apostolics say are God-instilled. It therefore is ok to not live by the instinct, though God has instilled them. If not so, then the conclusions of apostolics who think that God has instilled as a 'universal principle' (see the writings of David K. Bernard, among others) the desire to co/unco, then these must be re-examined and modified. God does not err in commanding the Nazirite to act contrary to the instincts he has instilled. Better to adjust wrong conclusions of the Nazirite than see God contradicting himself.

What you are saying in effect is that it is unnatural to do otherwise than as Paul taught.

Correct. I have said this and it concludes correctly what I have stated.

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.

Yes. And I try to be consistent and have already said that Paul teaches that people should follow their instinctive impulses. But should some choose not to, not to make a big deal of it because instincts aren't commands. Because responses to instincts aren't ruled by time, I don't see co/unco to be only for times of worship. The instincts which bring co/unco are active 24/7 and should be yielded to 24/7. What Paul speaks of in v4,5 as a specific example, doesn't prevent the principles he speaks of from being active in other times. v4,5 is a specific case of a general principle. The specific does not rule over the general. This goes along with my contention that he speaks of both cultural and spiritual things in this same passage. v4,5 is mostly aimed at the cultural aspect. But God cannot be divorced from cultural aspects because God is involved in every atom of human existence.