>If in 1 Cor 11:5 you are saying Paul is implying the negation (that a
>woman who prays or prophesies with her head covered does
>not shame her head), but not that he is not implying it logically, but
>some other way, then could I ask how that implication is determined?
Common sense.
It would be absurd for Paul to spend the better part of eleven verses
talking about women's hair if he believes it is ALWAYS wrong for
women to pray and prophecy.
One might as well ask how logic proves to us that the Jesus mentioned
in Matthew 1:1 is the same Jesus mentioned in Matthew 2:1.
Russell Van Zandt
Layman