Dave

Thanks Suzanna! This is very informative!

Any chance of the bulk of this being posted as a comment at the current discussion on the meaning of kephale Cheryl? It is so relevant!

Kay,

so are you saying that all authority has been given to Jesus? 🙂

I ride it very fast around the yard.

Gengwall, glad to hear you rock at walting!

Kay, I am sorry to hear that you cannot show me a photo of the machine, but not nearly as distressed as I am about you having a bike that is 200% bigger in engine capacity! I have a Honda 450 Cafe Racer from 1972.

I feel I should be truthful at this point and confess to Mark that currently I am working towards getting it registered…so I mainly ride it around the backyard at the moment. I feel so small.

Cheryl I did not really lose interest, not with your commenting. We could do with more pictures though.

Just when I was losing interest…Kay can you email me a photo of your bike 😉

Thanks for your insight gengwall. I hope you enjoyed your dancing!

““This is because when you say ONLY the Father sent the Son you have let go of the oneness of the Trinity completely (not just function…but completely).”

Can you explain this more for me Dave, why you believe you lose the oneness of the Trinity completely? Thanks

That said, you have just gained about 200% more respect from me if you ride a bike?”

Working backwards…200% eh?…am I out of the negatives yet? 😉

Mark, good question. The reason I think you have let go of the oneness completely is in saying that ONLY the Father has sent the Son you have the Godhead operating as purely individuals.

If you simply believe the Father sent the Son, then that is fine, it leaves room for oneness and seperateness without commenting on specifics. But! If you say the Godhead sent the Son then you have made the most accurate statement that remembers the seperateness and oneness.

It is also the hardest to explain in human terms…which in itself makes me wonder if it has to be the most accurate! I like what you said about Augustine 😉

Hi Mark,

I am not just blogging, I am lawn mowing, registering the dog and about to put a new headlight in the motorbike!

Please understand that I am not wanting to push the unity too far. The truth is that the Godhead is 100% 3 persons and 100% 1 God, and so in another sense we cannot push either too far as long as we hold on to the other. To say that when the Spirit hovered over the waters, or when Jesus hung on a cross, that the Godhead was NOT there is wrong. Just as it is wrong to say that ONLY the Father sent Jesus.

Now, if you want to ask me, in what way was the Father hanging on the cross…I cannot answer that and I doubt anyone can.

The reason for this is, as they are one they cannot be completely separated (which is what you appear to seek to do). Nor can they be completely mushed together (which is not what I seek to do – I recognise that the Father sent the Son).

Mushing is different to noodling. Something to do with huskies?

It appears to me that if someone is pushing something too far it is you Mark. This is because when you say ONLY the Father sent the Son you have let go of the oneness of the Trinity completely (not just function…but completely).

“1. Preciesely Dave- Jesus is the image of the Invisible God. Hence his qualities or homoousious are God, yet he is distinct from the Father. In what way is he distinct- obviously functionality.”

Obviously? Obviously!?! From where do you get this Mark?

With regards to Col 1:3, Paul refers to God the Father. This is nothing new, Paul do it in other place, and we also talk about God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. So, Paul, to save confusion has been clear he is referring to God the Father in verse 3. HOWEVER, verse 15 does NOT provide this qualification. Now if Jesus is only the image of the Father but NOT the Godhead, where does that leave Phil 2:6? There is not mention of Father there.

“Also you said “Also, who said only the Spirit was hovering over the waters and not the Father, or Jesus? Did they stay at home?” My answer- the bible Gen 1:2 “and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.””

Hang on, you never answered my question. Where were they? Were they somewhere else? Was the Godhead not hovering over the waters? Why do you want to completely seperate the Godhead? You can’t they are one. “The Father and I are one”.

“Also if people feel i have a wrong view of the Trinity please explain why Jesus saids the ‘Father’ sent him.”

The question for you Mark is how you reconcile this with Jesus saying “I and the Father are one” and “if you have seen me you have seen the Father”.

Hey Cheryl, I was going to use John 1:1 but figured Mark only wanted to hear from Paul. What about Phil 2:5-6?

By the way I also have no issue with the fact that Paul is NOT saying all men are heads and all women are not. I am not sure if anyone did.

Cheryl, is it $64 Canadian, US or Australia? We are a multi-racial blog.

It is my day off if that helps explain why I am like this.

Point 4 of comment 71 – sorry Mark I was too slooow (with broad Aussie accent), but you have given us a verse!

“Note with Colossians 1:15, just a verse before the one you quoted- “He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God( Father), so here is just one small example to support my view.”

Once again, putting your interpretation in brackets does not make it right! Why is the invisible God only the Father? The Spirit is not involved? He is invisible – he’s the Holy Ghost man! But what about before Jesus was born…you know, when he was eternally being begotton? Was he visible or invisible? Also, who said only the Spirit was hovering over the waters and not the Father, or Jesus? Did they stay at home?

As I said earlier, yes the Father sends the Son. This is a fact and true to say (John says it). But the Spirit also sends Jesus. He certainly never recorded his dissent about it, so I assume the Spirit was in on it. Jesus who was also there and had a vote seems to have been in on it too.

My point is Mark, when we view the Godhead there are times when if we look at them as seperate we run into trouble, and other times when we look at them together we run into trouble. The only way around this is to use different words. Paul does this. God = Godhead. Father = Father etc.

Yeah yeah I can be serious too…

“1. In relation to ‘God’ meaning Godhead rather than Father I disagree. Yes you say that Godhead could fit the rest of 1 Corinthians 11 but so can Father. I challenge people to search the Pauline epistles and see what the word is that Paul uses for Father and what he uses for Christ. You will soon see that ‘God’ (Theos) is Paul’s preferred term for ‘Father’ and so it is not wrong to assume that is his meaning here. It would actually be less weighty to assume it means Godhead over Father.”

Not so fast slick! Challenge us? WHAT (typed with much indignation but no shouting)! Do you have some research to back up the statement you made in your paper before you send us off to search the Pauline writings?! Do you want us to research you paper 😉
I’m sure you can easily prove your understanding if you want to, and I might add it is crucial to your argument!

“Oh Noooooo! Cheryl, do you not understand men at all? You pick the cowardly lion! Sheez.”

I think that lion has make up on Cheryl.

I think Mel Gibson has make up on.

Now I am confused.

No offence meant pinklight.

Barbiblog?

“since i just wrote that about 12 more posts came in…sorry if you feel liked i ignored you Dave”

I’m good!

I am also glad you came back so quickly because when gengwall suggested we wait for you I was wondering what I was going to do with myself!

I was going to complain about the overly PINK picture of Shirley. Come on Cheryl we don’t want to break down the male/female gender difference too much. Have you got a more manly pict relating to lollipops? 🙂

“2 – The gift of teaching is not given to elders, but rather, those with a gift of teaching are eligible to be teaches. Otherwise how was Timothy to know who would fit the requirements for being an elder?”

Sorry, those with a gift of teaching are eligible to be ELDERS…not teaches (though this stands to reason too!!)

”I hope you can see how my view of kephale is supported contextually in 1 Corinthians 11 even if you don’t agree with me. Cheryl, thank you for being willing to post my paper”

Yes, thanks Cheryl posting the paper!
No Mark, I am afraid I cannot see how your view of kephale is supported contextually in 1 Cor 11. As Cheryl has already noted, you begin by telling us your view of what kephale means, and then you construct an exegesis (for the want of a more accurate term!) that fits your understanding of kephale. I feel I was built up with false promises of looking at the context to determine the meaning. ?
This is clearly seen in your point 2 where you say,

”One might object to me saying what about “woman is FROM man…but all things are FROM God (verses 12, 8). But I do not think this supports the ‘source’ hypothesis over hierarchy, rather it gives ‘source’ as the basis for the authoritative teaching. Now my view of how it fits into the passage will follow below.”

Basically you “do not think this supports the “source” hypothesis…and then you move on to tell us how what you “think” “fits into the passage”.
Two comments I want to make.
1 – You said, “But none the less what does Paul mean by “God (the Father) is the head of Christ”. This language is consistent with the Father and Son language used by Jesus and the rest of the New Testament.”
It was Peter Moore (comp lecturer at the Pressie college in Sydney – a lovely bloke and good friend) who enlightened me to the fact that in the NT Father means Father and God means God! Mark you cannot simply change God to mean Father by inserting your understanding in brackets. I know this could start us back to the previous discussion on “Jesus’ actual words”, but lets not go there! Rather we need to accept that God means Father Son and Holy Spirit. So who is the head of Christ? All three, including Christ himself. This is consistent with eternal generation but it also recognises that there is a oneness in the Godhead that we do not understand and will not understand until we experience that oneness ourselves, as it was lost at the fall. To me your failure to understand the Trinity at this point undermines much of your further thoughts as you have imported something into the Trinity that does not exist – hierarchy. Although the NT does tell us the Father sent the Son (which is also true), here, in a passage you claim to be about authority Paul makes a point of saying Jesus is sent by the Father, the Spirit – AND himself.
If there is no hierarchy in the Godhead, then God being the Head of Christ must mean that Christ has his origin in the Godhead. What else could it mean?
2 – The gift of teaching is not given to elders, but rather, those with a gift of teaching are eligible to be teaches. Otherwise how was Timothy to know who would fit the requirements for being an elder?

“I think i will leave the previous discussion alone now since you are insistent on thinking i’m a liberal, and am not willing to tell me which of Jesus words in the gospel are his direct actual words.”

I thought Cheryl answered this well. They are all Jesus’ words, whether you want to call them “direct”, “actual” or anything else. Cheryl has said that differences do not equal contradictions, so why do you ask her to pick and choose? Cheryl in not throwing any of Jesus’ words into question, and has said as much. If you think Cheryl needs to pick and choose, perhaps you should, after all you are the one claiming this can be done in Genesis. Do you see the situation?

And because you are claiming that some words (or at least a word) in Gensis is not “actual” Cheryl has likened your methadology to liberal methadology (I do not think Cheryl has called you a liberal).

“Maybe when Adam saw Eve he really said “Huh? Um, God, I don’t like this one can you try again?”

I heard that young Adam wanted the puppy for a friend but God insisted on Eve. Adam was only young at the time. The puppy had a waggily tail.

Is that how you spell “waggily”?

“yes i am supposed to be studying, but church history is hard to be excited about. This blog is much more engaging.”

Amen!!

“Time to prove it.”

Yes…lets stop the merry-go-round!

Sorry…could not help that… 😉

To continue – the capitals were for emphasis…not SHOUTING!!

Mark, after telling Kay she should do some research before making silly comments you told us, “The premise of taking the meanig source AND denying male leadership has only really come about with the rise of feminism. I thought that was interesting?”

I asked you what your research was for making this comment, especially in the light of lexical evidence. As yet you have not responded, but unless you have done exhaustive research of at least publications over the last several hundred years then you have not researched enough to make such a “silly” statement.

My observations of this conversation are similar to gengwall. It goes round and round!

Aren’t you studying for stuvac Mark? You said you were at college most days so I assume you are full time? You must be using Cheryl’s blog for study breaks? :0)

“My comment was in reaction to people rejecting that kephale can have an authority overtone, not that it is absolute, hence why i said context is the determining factor. Since you have not agreed that it can have an authoritative overtone, can i assume you don’t believe it can?”

Mark, let me be clear.

What your comment was a reaction to does not explain what your comment stated. YOU STATED that kephale means authority – “case closed” without any reference to context. YOU have rejected it NOT meaning authority outright AND you have claimed that Kay should do more research before making such a “silly” statement. This has been WITHOUT looking at the context. This was YOUR statement. This is why I have said what I said.

Now, YOU have ASSUMED that I do not believe kephale can mean authority because I have not specifically stated this. However, if you had listened(?) to what I wrote(!) you would know that I believe it can mean the thing on the end of a match (it can mean almost anything) – it depends on CONTEXT. At the same time I have also commented on research that has shown that kephale can mean MORE than authority.

One important thing that was missed with regard to faithfully reading scripture – to have ears that hear 🙂

Mark, I think we have been over all this before, but as kephale is being used as a metaphor by Paul, context dictates the meaning, not how the word has been previously used.

Your comment “You and argue all you want why Paul didn’t use certain words but the fact is he used the ones he did. Kephale does have authority…cased closed…do some proper research before making silly comments.”

This does not allow for context, it clearly indicates that you simply think kephale means authority…case closed. In light of this statement I defended Kay by saying that even Prof Grudem had found evidence to show kephale can mean things other than authirity.

“The premise of taking the meanig source AND denying male leadership has only really come about with the rise of feminism. I thought that was interesting?”

This is not true. The is lexical evidence of this meaning that is dated approx 100 years before feminism. There are also other sources that predate this. Your comment sounds a lot like a CBMW type statement. Can I ask where you found the information to back that statement up?

Sorry, I should have said that Kay’s conclusions agree with Prof Grudem’s research, but not with Prof Grudem’s conclusions.
😉

My anit-spam word is love. Did everyone hear that?

Now, Mark, thanks for apologising to Cheryl, I was getting a bit stressed reading the comments and was hoping we would not all forget our relationship with each other in Christ 🙂

Mark, you seem to take seriously what CBMW say and I assume you would give some weight to Wayne Grudem’s reasearch? I can direct you straight to Grudem’s reasearch that indicates clearly that kephale is used for “origin/source” MORE than “authority” in ancient Greek texts. I am more than happy to wait for your info on kephale, but please do not suggest my good friend Kay has not done some proper research when her conclusions are in agreement with Prof Grudem.

Also, if I might just add there has been a lot of “you are dodging my questions” talk going on. For goodness sake we are over 260 comments and I am finding it hard just to keep up with the conversation let alone answer questions. Mark I know I made a statement or two earlier that you wanted clarified, I will simply withdraw the comments, we have enough to look at as it is!

God Bless you all!!

Don Carson is Canadian…about…

Thanks for your encouragement Cheryl. I must say I have found you to be a trustworthy and worthwhile person 🙂
I have also learnt a lot from the conversations (thanks to everyone else too!). I am amazed constantly at how God has used the written word to express truth!

Bonza!

Hi Mark,

In regards to the law and the covenant. Abraham was considered righteous because he believed God, not because he kept the law…I believe Paul makes that clear in Romans. Speaking of Romans Paul makes it clear that the Gentiles (those without the Torah) have the law written on their hearts. This means whether or not you have the written word, scripture, the Bible or not…in your heart there is written the basic expectation God has with regards to how we live. All mankind, it would appear, have this which is why there are none without excuse, and also why there are none without sin…as the law increases sin!

Now I confess that I am not really sure what your point is, but I see some problems with some of your logic. Perhaps this is because i still need to watch the vids? 🙁

I should prob be quiet and let Cheryl do her stuff…Go Cheryl!

“Your second question seems abit silly really. Of course God can talk to his ‘daughter’ too. There is just no record of it, so why are we saying He did.”

Sorry to appear a bit silly, but some think that there was a chain in command thing happening, I was just wondering if you shared that view. At the same time, just because there is no record of it does nto mean that he didn’t. When you say no record of it, how do you explain the plural “You”. Also, if we only go with the command given to Adam, then why could Eve not eat of the fruit? It would be adding to the command to say Eve could not as it was only directed at Adam. Surely she had to have been told by God or at least God must have given further instructions to Adam to pass on that we are not told about. God never said to Adam to tell Eve about it, to tell Eve that she shouldn’t according to chapter 2.

I was referring to Exodus 20 and Exodus 34. My point is that not all the commandments are the same. There are two new tablets and the covenant is renewed and some of the commands are the same, and there are 10 commands…but they are not all the same. So, was there something God said regarding the “law” that we are not told about? Or do we assume that Moses is decieved and got the second lot wrong? Or is there more info we do not have? Or is our understanding of the law fundamentally wrong?

I am not “swerving” anything! As I cannot view the videos I can only involve myself in the conversation at a level that the discussion makes appropriate. I do hope to view them eventually, but I am sure Cheryl will deal with the issue before then. Also, Hebrew grammar was never my strongpoint! Perhaps that is swerving? 😉