No, it is John Neal with whom I am in contention.
> Now, here's the information: Paul says in 1Cor 11:6-9 - "For if the woman
> be not covered, let her be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn
> or shaven, let her (and, not him) be covered. For a man (a man, and not a
> woman) indeed ought not to cover his (his, and not her) head, forasmuch as he
> (he and not she) is the image and glory of God: but the woman (the woman, and
> not the man) is the glory of the man (man, not woman nor God). For the man is
> not of the woman; but the woman of the man (Imagine, - Paul believes Genesis).
> Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."
> - The
> woman IS to be covered. However, the man is NOT to be covered because "HE IS
> THE IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD." Again, the man is NOT to be covered because HE IS
> THE IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD, but the woman IS to be covered, because SHE IS *NOT*
> THE IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD.
No, you have put words into Paul's mouth. He clearly avoids
saying anything about what woman is or is not the image of. His whole
emphasis is on _glory_ (_doxa_).
. She is to be covered for modesty's sake. Modesty,
> because of the lust of the flesh.
No, thetre is nothing at all about lust in the text. The notion
of some of the fathers that v.10 has to do with avoiding the gaze of the
evil angels (a la Gen.6) has no basis at all, especially because it does
not say there that she is to have a "veil" but "authority" (_exousia_)
on her head - probably a sign of the authority she has to "pray or
prophesy" in the assembly.
As to the rest of your post, take a look at Gal.3:28 & note that
it is in the present, not future, tense.
George L. Murphy