Yes I did. I do not take human reasoning to define Scripture. I let Scripture define Scripture and that is what you did to try to show it was axiomatic.
We are stuck with the efficiency of language. We must bear in mind that an epistle is written to a specific group of people with whom Paul has already developed a relationship. As such, he and the Corinthian share experiences and information in common, which are not repeated in the epistle. For the sake of efficiency, Paul would not repeat facts and information he is certain they already know. It's a waste of time to be repetitious unless something needs to be emphasized.
He tells you his concern right up front: instructions that he already previously gave them. But since his last visit, something new has come up, which needs his attention. That's why he says, "I want you to understand . . . bla, bla, bla.
I don't believe you when you say that you are using scripture to interpret scripture, because such a thing is impossible. Whatever you are doing it isn't THAT. Scripture doesn't interpret scripture. We employ ordinary reading skills, finely honed with practice, in order to seek what the author originally intended to convey. I say "finely honed" because the practice of Bible interpretation is subject to pitfalls, which can be hard to spot.
For instance, you and I are reading the scriptures and when we read the scriptures, we bring our biases and our presuppositions with us. Interpreting the scriptures is a discipline that seeks to remove or set aside our biases and preunderstanding in order to find what Paul or any other Biblical writer is trying to tell us.
The correct interpretation of any passage will be able to answer the most fundamental questions, "Why did Paul bring this up? Why did he spend the time to write a letter? What couldn't wait until the next time he visited the church? Why didn't he bring this up when he was there last?
I am sorry, if you want to redefine a simple clear teaching of Scripture with another definition you need proof and not just posit a different meaning.
I gave you proof. You ignored it. It's a matter of addressing the fundamental questions.
That is because they are! He presents His arguments as clear priniciples to show his points and why the apostles ordered such covering for church.
Perhaps you didn't notice that there are NO imperatives in the chapter. All we have are a list of facts concerning headship and the nature of women and an allusion to a previous instruction concerning head covering.
Paul tells his readers that he gave the Corinthian church instructions; he praises them for keeping some of the instructions and does not praise them for the others. He NEVER explicitly says what the instructions were. All we can do is deduce what the instruction might have been, which involved guidance as to what a man should do with his head covering during prayer and prophecy.
He doesn't tell the men to remove the head covering. He simply states the significance of not doing so. If a man should fail to remove his head covering, he will disgrace his head. This simply answers to the question, "why is it important?"
Paul never explicitly says, "I require that men remove the head covering during prayer or prophesying." Such a command is absent from the passage. Take a look; it is not included in the text. Rather, he makes a reference back to a tradition he already gave them. "
. . . just as I delivered them to you. -- past tense. We can't know, for certain, what instructions he gave them.
NEXT, (and this is a bit you seem to ignore) he begins an entirely new thought with the phrase, "But now I want you to understand . . .", which strongly implies that he is giving them new information, which he didn't previously share. He wants to give them a new bit of knowledge that he never gave them before. NOW, he says, I want you to understand . . . (what follows.)
WHAT FOLLOWS?
The Apostle describes the hierarchical relationship between authority figures. In brief, Paul defines headship then he states the problem in terms of that definition and remember, he hasn't mentioned this to the Corinthians before. The same behavior has two different implications depending on whether it is performed by a man or a women. If a man wears the head covering he disgraces his head, but if a woman removes the head covering she disgraces her head.
"But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head . . ."
The question is, why didn't he mention this before? Why is this new information? Think about it, if women were forbidden to pray or prophesy in Church, this wouldn't be a problem would it? Second, if women were ALREADY praying and prophesying in Church while Paul was present, he would have told the woman what to do when he was there last.
THIS is a NEW problem that arose AFTER Paul left. Understand? He tells his readers that he is giving them NEW instructions saying "But I want you to understand . . ."
Notice also that Paul isn't commanding women to do anything at all. He is attempting to illicit a behavior from the Corinthians through persuasive speech. He wants them to reason it out and act voluntarily based on information he supplies.
Let me say it another way. Verse 4 is the New Information. Verse 5 is a restatement of the New problem in terms of the hierarchy of leadership. Verse 4 tells the women that her husband is her "head", and the women are telling Paul, "But if we remove our head covering, we will dishonor our head." THAT is the problem they want Paul to solve. And why is it a problem? Because when Paul was present with them, he gave them instructions concerning the men; but didn't give them instructions concerning the women.
No, He is making a cogent sound argument for his dictate for women to wear a man made head covering.
If this is so, the problem is, he never dictates. All he does is spell out the significance of actions such they be performed.
I have showed you Pauls argument.
1. I showed Paul used 2 separate words for covering to distinguish between hair and a man made covering.
2. I showed you that woman is subordinate to man and made for man by Paul.
3. One reason why woman should have authority on their head (covering ) because of the angels.
4. and Paul even cites natural law instituted by God (hair as a covering for women)
I suspect your rejection of this is because of the curse in Gen. 3 than any sound teaching of Scripture which does not defend your position.
I wouldn't say that Paul is drawing a distinction between hair and a man-made covering.