Jason

I am not sure I am following you.

What I said (perhaps in an unclear manner) was basically the same as what you said in another post.
For the interest of clarity, I will post the post that you wrote.



"Marcus,

It appears to me that your argument is essentially that Paul would have never told the men to remove their head coverings because "To a Jew, it is unthinkable, irreverent, strictly forbidden, a sin of the highest order, to come before God in prayer with an uncovered head." Well, there were many things that were "unthinkable" to the Jew (like eating with unwashed hands) that Christ and the apostles had no problem setting them straight on. I honestly can't fathom how you can read that text, given the straightforward observations Pilgrim has given you regarding Paul's polemic from nature, and claim that Paul was teaching the very opposite of what he said. What's even more amusing is that you wrote, "But I do think it would be theologically inconsistent of Paul to place such a legalistic and superficial command on the body of Christ as a particular article of clothing", while at the same time you maintain that Paul would have to respect the Jewish custom to pray to God with an uncovered head! I see, so it is okay for Jews to be enslaved to a head covering code of their own, but if Paul wants to impose the inverse practice it becomes legalistic, superficial, unthinkable? Your argument has come across as nothing but special pleading from the start, so rather than gathering to watch a great football game between two top-rated teams, it has been more like watching the cheerleading section while the other team is out waiting on the field. I do hope you intend to address the text, from the text, at some point."

Regards,

~Jason

I hope that clears the matter up.

Tom