Pinklight,

I have said again and again that we cannot comprehend nor communicate the Trinity effectively. However we must do the best we can with Scripture, since most unbiblical positions stem from a wrong historical understanding of the Trinity, e.g JW’s.

So please stop accusing me of a unbalanced position and having no ‘proof’ or support for my argument. Maybe someone else’s eyes need to be opened away from our cultural influences.

From what people have showed here i have yet to see how one distinguishes the Father from the Son. The closest someone came was that Jesus subordinated himself in His incarnation. The question then must be raised, was Jesus subordinate before his incarnation and after. According to everyone here apart from me, it was ONLY at his incarnation, and as yet no one has begun to understood what Jesus ‘role’ is now, since he is still in his human form is he not? Calvin saids some interesting things about the ‘eternal’ position of Jesus.

“Besides, it was not the Father that descended to the earth, but he who came forth from the Father; nor was it the Father that died and rose again, but he whom the Father had sent. This distinction did not take its beginning at the incarnation: for it is clear that the only begotten Son previously existed in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). For who will dare to affirm that the Son entered his Father’s bosom for the first time, when he came down from heaven to assume human nature? Therefore, he was previously in the bosom of the Father, and had his glory with the Father. Christ intimates the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father, when he says that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and between the Holy Spirit and himself, when he speaks of him as another as he does when he declares that he will send another Comforter; and in many other passages besides (John 14:6; 15:26; 14:16).

Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. 1997. Institutes of the Christian religion. Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.;Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA”

So what was Jesus position pre-incarnation…was it a subordinated position? What is his position now considering He is STILL in human form? Maybe his humanity is now void…the subordinated part according to your interpretation doesn’t really apply in His resurrected body.

Kay,

I understood you to be meaning that in 1 Cor 11:3, the man/woman relationship cannot be understood in the same way as the Christ/God relationship, and thus we should not use human analogies in relation to understand God…is this what you were meaning? Because what you said in #171, didn’t really seem to have anything to do with what you said in #169 to me, but i might just not be understanding you.

Pinklight,
i think i understand your questions. If not correct me please.

161- “If Jesus is only the image of the Father but not the Godhead, how do you explain this?:

“Who, being in very nature God (theos),
did not consider equality with God(theos) something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.” Phil 2:6-7″

Like i have said previously Paul often uses ‘Theos’ to refer to the Father. I think the same is obvious here in Phillipians. Look how the rest of the passage finishes.

” 9 ?Therefore ?God has ?highly exalted him and bestowed on him a?the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus b?every knee should bow, c?in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and ?every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is ?Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

163- not really sure what you want me to say about this one?

172- same again as above????

Now it is asked why do i distinguish- my response: simply because the bible does. The Son is NEVER said to send the Father, adn it is heretical to think the Father was crucified on the cross. Likewise the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son not vice verse. So i am simply showing scripture. According the Amos Love’s interpretation, it must then mean that the Father, Son and Spirit were all crucified! Is this what people really want to believe?

““He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust” (Ps. 103:14). The disparity between us and God IS impossible really to imagine. Why should we think that the relationship within the Godhead would be like any of our relationships? All analogies fail, because the disparity here is between what is Infinite and we finite and fallen. We are merely seeing “through a glass darkly” the Perfect and the pre-fall.”

C,mon Kay! I agree that God and indeed the Trinity is beyond us-no doubt. But i have heard this argument all the time about ‘human analogies’. The question needs to be asked, does God use them himself to help us understand Him better. Of course he does- Ezekial 16 is a classic example. If God has given us human analogies to help us, which he has, let’s use them to better understand Him and his word.

Frank,

Thanks again for your insightful thoughts. I’m not sure what you mean by all scholars apart from Grudem and Co, but i have found very few, non egalitarian scholars who think that ‘source’ is the common meaning. I think that ‘beginning’ or pre-eminance are probably more common than ‘source’. I’m sure we all agree that there are many meanings for ‘kephale’. I would never suggest that ‘leader’ is the primary meaning, nor would i suggest it would be ‘source’.
Regarding your interpretation of ‘source’ in the rest of the NT, i would have to disagree. “Authority’ would fit just as simply as ‘source’, but anyway i don’t want to get to bogged down in this and not comment to everyone else who i have missed.

Quick question for Cheryl,

Have you had much to do with the Christadelphian cult? If so, what are some good resources for understanding/ challenging their teaching?

Thanks

“Mark, so you believe that Jesus is equal in authority and power to God (meaning the Father in your case?) but that he is SUBORDINATE by choice? I’m not sure what you “think” but based on what you’ve communicated my opinion would be that you think Jesus is UNDER God which = subordination which = NOT equal. Jesus is not equal (in function) by choice then. That’s how I read you. Please fine tune this for me where I’m not understanding you…”

I will quickly comment to pinklight as i continue to study…

1. Yes, i think Jesus is equally God, and equal in essence, power, authority etc to both the Father and the Holy Spirit.

2. However i do think that Jesus is ‘subordinate'(and i use that term unhappily) in relation to his subsistence. This has been the orthodox position of the Trinity since the Nicene Creed. For example, Jesus is sent from the Father, and the HS is sent from the Father and Son. The Son never sends the Father or likewise with the Spirit. This is what the bible teaches in regards to the ‘subsistence’ of the members of the Trinity.

3. You seem to think that ‘subordination’ of subsitence must infer ‘unequal’ as God, therefore heretical. This is the commonly adopted approach of Egals, but is unscriptural and un-confirmable by the historic debates. If one cannot come to terms with the differences in subsistence, a modalistic Trinity is the result, which is condemnable- because the Son is really no different from the Father. The early church councils and Fathers, aswell as the Reformers all commented on a difference between the economic and the essential Trinity. One in relation to ‘essence’, one in relation to ‘subsistence’.

Hope this helps you understand my view. Any thorough research of the Bible and the history will confirm what i am saying, but of course an egalitarian cannot accept this because it means that men and women can be ‘equal’ yet different in terms of roles. Therefore they must reject the orthodox position of the Trinity.

So Cheryl in your opinion, verse 3 is referring to one husband/wife- Adam and Eve? Where then does Paul’s argument seperate from this first husband/wife to those in Corinth. What specific grammar allows for such a change?
Thanks in advance

I had to comment one more time to make it a ‘Ton’

Dave will get that i hope, for everyone else it is a cricket term for when you score 100

Lin,

Have you even read my paper? If so why are you asking such questions since i give reasons for my view in what i wrote.

“Why are you assuming it is husband/wife?”

also “Mark, I think your reading authority into everything is a natural outcome for making Jesus lesser. You may not even realize it.”
1. I have been persistent in telling you i believe Jesus is equally God.
2. You have not given any reason as to why i see Jesus as supposedly ‘lesser’. Are you reading into what i have said? Please direct your comments at the actual paper. Give me your exegetical reasons for dispute, not just your worldview.

Kay,

If you disagree with it being about husbands/wives, please give me your interpretation as to why it is men/women?

Dave,

I am not trying to completely seperate the Trinity. But what the three persons ‘did’ at creation was not the same. Nor was their ‘role’ in salvation history the same. Hence why i believe we should not compound the members, but like you said, nor should we tear them apart. At the end of the day i am always going to throw my hands up in the air, and side with Augustine at the lack of ability in our terminology to express this biblical truth. I can only attempt to explain my view to the best of my ability.

“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?

that comment above was directed to Sue sorry

Yes and Yes
The first is in relation to your blog. The second is in relation to your final comment
“We are not obligated, it is just a proposal, a human idea and suggested interpretation, don’t you think.”

This interpretation i am offering is of course how i believe the passage is laid out. Not everyone will agree with me, i understand that. However in relation to the evidence i know about kephale and the way it was used metaphorically in this grammatical construction, and the way i read the rest of the bible i feel that what i have offered here is reasonable. Of course i am a sinful man, not God and am open to the Spirit moulding me, which i’m sure he will do if i need correcting.
However i cannot see how one can claim for a ‘source’ interpretation and yet hold to this being about husbands/wives. It just doesn’t make sense. I know Cheryl sees this as husbands/wives, yet what i read of her interpretation of verse 3 seemed like she was referencing Adam/Eve. I might be reading Cheryl wrong here, but one cannot claim a husband/wife dualism and source, because the husband is not the source of his wife. Nor with what Paul details in chapter 15 about the final resurrection can i see his God/Christ reference referring to ‘source’.
In my opinion the only way ‘source’ can be the intended meaning here is if we abandon that it is husband/wife dualism. If we abandon that, Paul’s argument makes no sense. Also the way ‘source’ has to be manipulated, made into synonomous meanings in order to portray ones understanding of the 3 relationships seems a bit forced in my view.
But thankyou for your comments and questions.

Dave,

Why are you blogging on your day off? You should be at the beach or something? But thankyou for your questions. Regarding the above i’m just going with what the Bible says…it was the Spirit of God.

It seems that you are pushing the unity very far… for example was it then the Father who was crucified on the cross? It seems you are unwilling to see the distinctions within the Godhead- one God, yet three persons. In relation to Colossians i still disagree. Paul uses God in reference to the Father very often and i see this clearly in Colossians.

Lin,

If you really believe i don’t think Jesus is equal to God, you either haven’t read my actual article OR you are just ignoring it. Since i agreed with the early trinitarian theologians who said Jesus was ‘homoousious’ (same substance) with the Father, i’ll assume you are just choosing to ignore it.

This is just all too tempting to leave alone…Again working backwards.

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.

2. Cheryl,
   a. “Jesus said that the Father sent him because this connected him to God as His source.”
   b. I don’t see that at all in John 17. Jesus saids “For you (Father) granted him (Jesus) authority over all people…” Continuing on “ I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you (Father) gave me to do…”- John 1: 2, 4…and so we could go on and on showing how Jesus himself distinguished his role from His Father’s. You have done very little in an attempt to reconcile John 17, nor have you discussed 1 Cor 15.

3. Dave, regarding #78. Lets look at the context of Colossians 1. Verse 3= “We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…” Who do you think God is referencing there? Father or Godhead? Since this is the context of Chapter 1 and Paul is using God to mean ‘Father’ how can you reject that in verse 15. Throughout the whole Chapter Paul is interlocking God to mean Father with Jesus as Christ or Lord etc.
   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.” Let’s face it there is very good reason to think that Paul in verse 3 of 1 Cor 11 is paralleling God the Father with Christ. This is familiar with how he writes in all his epistles.

4. Cheryl, you said “Mark, you are the one who said that anytime head was used with people it meant authority”. I should have been more direct, i agree. But nonetheless i thought you would have realised what i meant from the other paper i sent you.

5. Kay, no i don’t think women should wear head coverings. This was a cultural practice to show the wifes submission to her husband. Our culture does not use a head covering to show a wife’s submission, so i don’t believe it should be enforced.

6. Let me again say about the relationship between chapter 7 and 11. The construction of the grammar indicated to me that chapter 11 was instructing husband/wife over men/women. I said that at the beginning of my paper. However the context and issue Paul is now addressing in chapter 11 is NOT the same as chapter 7, so to over emphasise the link to strongly is wrong.

7. 1 final question. Can people tell me whether they believe that this passage is dealing with husband/wife or men/ women. If the former, and you want to take the meaning ‘source’ for kephale, in what way then is the husband the source of the wife.

Ok working backwards and then i must clean my house, since my wife will be home today and i have exam prep notes scattered all over my lounge room.

1. I do love the way Egals always fall back to old mate Cyril as if he determines all. Let’s share abit about him. First he is 5th Century AD and of course is interpreting his view of scripture. If you want to rely on him Cheryl, why not introduce the many other early theologians who didn’t see it the way Cyril did. Now that would be a fair account of history. In fact the people closest to Jesus and Paul in the early centuries, never interpreted the scriptures this way…let’s not ignore that.

2. Gengwell- in 1 Cor 12 does the text in the slightest state that person a is the ‘head’ of person b. No it doesn’t! And every other account we have of person a being the head of person b, it is ALWAYS understood authoritatively. The use of ‘kephale’ in these texts is in no way similar what so ever…
   a. “Show me where Paul either says or implies that this passage has to do with who is in charge in the marriage. From what I understand from your earlier posts, this passage has to do with “formal church”, not the chain of command in marriage. So show me.”
   The whole implication lies in the point that by not covering her head, or the husband covering his head, he/she dishonours the ‘head’ above them- pretty obvious i would think. Not to mention Paul’s progression of verse 10 “For this reason…” and make sure we ask for what reason, the answer being that Eve was made from and for Adam, a wife should have authority on her head.
   Also in regard to Church, i do believe this passage lies in the same section as 12-14, but Paul is addressing wives/husbands within that Church. To accept this as generic men/women is poor exegesis in my opinion and fails to recognise the proper understanding of kephale and Paul’s argument of the passage.

3. Again in relation to verse 11 and 12, do not separate it from the rest of Paul’s argument. Doing this distorts the text and ignores the grammar. Note also in my introduction how i see this as relating back to Gen 2- this might help people understand what i am saying.

4. Cheryl, i don’t have a problem with seeing verse 12 as meaning God the Father. 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. Note also in relation to things coming from God, it was God the Father who spoke, God the Son who did it and God the Spirit who was hovering over the waters. So yes all things do come from God the Father. If you dispute that Paul uses Theos to mean the Father primarily, please show me why you believe this. Am i allowed to quote gengwell…”just because you say it’s so, doesn’t mean it’s so”

Also if people feel i have a wrong view of the Trinity please explain why Jesus saids the ‘Father’ sent him, and what the significance of 1 Cor 15 is. As yet i have never heard an egal reconcile these issues.

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

Cheryl, you were right when you said this would spark good conversation. I’ll try my best to answer all the questions starting from the bottom.

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.

2. Now in relation to ‘kephale’ I am a bit perplexed. I think once Cheryl posts my other paper which does show that kephale can mean authority it might help. But until then, since the issue at hand here is between ‘people’ and since anytime kephale is used between people it denotes authority it is easy to see it working here. I have shown how the passage is in fact dealing with the concept of authority between a husband and a wife, so why are people saying I have failed to show how this passage is dealing with authority. Maybe Cheryl or gengwell can be a bit more precise in their meanings or questions.

3. In relation to head covering- since the passage has nothing to do with mourning and is clearly dealing with husband/wife relationships it is easy to make the parallel. There is no benefit in bringing in all these other non related topics when the context of the passage is not dealing with those.

4. Now about verse 11 and 12. It is important to remember Paul’s injunction at the beginning of verse 11 (plen) which corresponds to his previous argument. Since this is the case, and if the previous verses are dealing with authority (which I think they are) one must read verses 11 and 12 in attachment to the rest. They are not a separate unity. That is why the argument flows through in my opinion. Not to mention he qualifies it with the natural and churches of God arguments…it fits nicely.

5. Please don’t read too much into my comment about the relationship between Chapter 7 and 11. If we just play semantic games with my words it will never help our discussions. My point is that Paul does make a connection with Chapter 7 therefore that is one reason why I see this as dealing with husband/wife. However the context is not the same, nor his argument so it is not a problem to see this as husband/wife over men/women. If we deny that this could be dealing with husband/wife on the grounds of application to everyone we not only miss the point of Paul’s argument but we must then ignore a lot of other passages in which Paul deals with certain people e.g. Eph 5 and 6 do not apply to everyone.

Sue, thankyou for your questions. Let me respond the best i can. I do believe the meaning of kephale in this text is best understood authoritatively, but even if one takes the meaning of ‘source’ it should not cancel out the male headship- hence what i said on which you quoted me.
Now regarding Chapter 7. Paul is indeed portraying a mutuality of respect for each others body in sexual union. However the context here is not the same- it is about propriety in worship.
The reason i see it as husband/wife is because i think it better fits the context of his argument. The ‘covering’ was a sign of a marriage in Corinth and it seems best to apply this here. But that said there are many great minds who see it differently- for example F.F Bruce.

Regarding single women and how this applied to them is indeed a valid argument. But we need to remember the ‘norm’ was to be married, and since the issue is again the ‘covering’ it is hard to reject Paul’s meaning as husband/wife. If Paul was meaning generic men and women his argument really makes no sense. So i feel it best to go with husband/wife.

Cheryl,

I’m not going to even bother giving you a detailed response to the above. Just remember that there are many Hebrew scholars out there trying to work all these things out, who have far greater knowledge than i am from what i am seeing you aswell. You might do well to reflect and look into these things before dis-missing them because they don’t fit into your worldview.

Let me also say before the dance floor gets too hot…

The reason why i have had so much time over the last few days to blog is because my family has been down in Melbourne. Fortunately for me they return tomorrow. UNfortunately for you it means i will have less time on here. So please be patient if i dont answer you straight away.

I’ll comment first,

I dunno why there is a random smiley face at the beginning- my humblest apologies. Also i like the picture at the top Cheryl

by the way i sent you the email

Oh how i wsih i had a dog with a wiggily-waggily tail 🙂

Cheryl,

A few sources to help you understand my position with Genesis.

“ However, some passages use that name (YHWH) when referring to much earlier periods (e.g Gen 4:1;, 5:29; 9;26…). A common explanation is that Exodus 6:3 belongs to a source (P) that links revelation of the divine name exclusively with Moses, and in the patriarchal narratives refers to El Shaddai; other material comes from the J source, which refers to Yahweh throughout. However that does not explain why the final editor of the Pentateuch appears unconcerned about the inconsistency.

Another explanation aimed at harmonization, notes the close link between the name and the character of God, and suggests that the name itself may not have been unknown to the patriarchs, but before the revelation to Moses they were unaware of its full revelation. (this is now the view you are accepting Cheryl).

Another explanation is that though the name Yahweh was unknown to the patriarchs, those who retold the stories recognised that the God they worshipped as Yahweh was the same God who spoke to, and was worshipped by, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and those before them, and so they used that name in their accounts of those earlier incidents…While not departing from the essential historical details, the narrator might, nonetheless, choose not to report the ipsissima verba of characters in the narrative because he wants to make a particular point…In this case the narrator has a definite purpose; he uses the name Yahweh in the earlier narrative deliberately, because he wants to emphasise the continuity between patriarchal worship and later worship of Yahweh.” – ‘Old Testament Theology, Robin Routledge p.92-94
(Now this is my view and i hope you can now see it is not a path to liberalism, but a highly recognised conservative scholarly approach)

I really do think i am not very good at communicating my point 🙂

Dave,

My issue lies in that if we always see ‘quotes’ as the very literal words someone spoke, whether Eve or Jesus we come to problems. Because no 2 gospel writers ‘quotes’ Jesus with the exact same words all the time. Do you see what i am saying? For example i believe Jesus spoke a sermon on the mount and both records of it do not contradict, yet both versions do not have the exact same ‘quoted’ words of Jesus.

Kay,

Yes i think it could be just as easy for God to preserve the exact words, and that is what some people hold to who say that Exodus 6 is outlining a fuller understanding of Yahweh that Eve and the patriarchs didn’t know.

Personally i don’t agree with that though, because of the issue we then have with the gospels. Which are the preserved exact words of Jesus since they are so different? Do you see what i am trying to say? I hope so. Maybe i’m just not explaining my self properly.

Cheryl,

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.

By the way i don’t see contradictions in the bible, i see contradictions in your view. Please also think about what is historical genre and what is not- this might help solve the issue.

I have no problem with the spirit giving rememberence to the gospel writers, i just keep in mind the intended audience and purpose, therefore we can understand the structure, arrangement and whihc of Jesus miracles, words etc that particular gospel writer is using. Do i think that they say things Jesus didn’t say, of course not- so don’t think i think this.

Since you are so quick to ignore ANE context and the contexts and prupose of the gospel writers i’ll assume you will abandon your opinion on 1 Cor 14 where you rely heavily on the cultural talmud?

I’ll send the email soon.

Cheerios

P.S I would really like you to tell me what you see as male headship? Or at least direct me to somewhere on this blog where you talk about it directly

Cheryl,

“This view makes the Bible deceptive by claiming something that is not true.”

Not true! Moses wrote this and God used him to record what God wanted recorded. It in no ways makes it deceptive. I’m sure you will realise this once you get a chance to do some research on it.

“I have seen a lot of “research” from people who dispute the validity of Genesis.”

I’m not disputing the validity of Genesis. Quite the opposite. I just don’t see that the ‘quotes’ have to be the exact words that people spoke. God has provided what he wants us to know.

“Words put into someone’s mouth that they didn’t actually say is nothing less than deceptive.”

So which gospel is more accurate? Did Matthew quote Jesus properly on the sermon on the mount (Matt 5) or did Luke quote Jesus properly on his sermon on the plain (Luke 6)? Which gospel writer is being the deceptive one since they are not identical? Do you see the logical problem with what you are saying?

“Those who solve the problems by believing that those whom the Holy Spirit inspired add to the words of Jesus or add to the words of Eve are heading down the path of liberalism. What else has been added? And what else has been taken away.”

Oh dear Cheryl! What we have is what God wants us to have. He wanted us to have 4 differnet gospels although not identical. We get to see Jesus from four different angles without having to assume there is a contradiction because there are different accounts. Just because the words are not identical doesn’t mean it’s a contradiction. Actually your view seems contradictory, because the gospels are so different in what they record Jesus saying- again which one is Jesus actual words? Please answer which gospel is closer to depicting Jesus actual words?

“Yes. If I understand you right, you seem to be saying that either Moses added God’s name to Eve’s quote in Genesis 4 or else Eve was following the serpent’s lead at removing God’s name in Genesis 3. You said that Moses could add God’s name in Genesis 4 in to Eve’s quote and that would apparently be fine with you. I strongly disagree.”

What i am saying is that Moses recorded what God wanted recorded, so whether these are Eve’s exact words or not is irrelevant to inspiration, because what we have is what God wanted. All i am saying is that we need to keep in mind contextual circumstances (Ancient near Eastern circumstances) and not ignore deliberate Hebrew emphasise which might help us understand the text better. If you think this is liberalism, you are very mistaken.

“. Either way does not have another writer adding words to Moses’ mouth. Did Moses say “I died”? or is it written in the third person? Add words to another person’s mouth is deception, pure and simple.”

So your happy for people to add to narrative, but not direct quotes? Is this right? Seems a little ironic. If you don’t trust the quotes why do you trust the narrative? Again please give me your understanding of the gospels!

“You greatly misunderstand. I am not rejecting male “headship”. It is what this “headship” means.”

This is why i am here. Trying to understand your position. What does male ‘headship’ look like in your opinion?

“While you may not have been on the CBMW site, the fact is that most comp resources have a tie to CBMW so you are getting CBMW indoctrination whether you realize it or not.”

Seems you against CBMW and am trying to link anything i say to them. Maybe i’m just indoctrinated by the bible?

By the way i have done an exegesis for you all, and yes i am supposed to be studying, but church history is hard to be excited about. This blog is much more engaging. Do you want me to email it to you Cheryl?

Cheryl,

“I also accept that the Hebrew grammar makes a distinction between knowing God’s name and knowing His full character that He revealed with Moses.”
This is a massive debate which we have barely touched on, so i hope you can appreciate why i had to probe your view since it was producing a contradiction in the word. But it is good to see you be corrected and accept the word.

“I would sure like you to admit when you change your mind too”
Actually i haven’t changed my mind. Earlier i mentioned that you have now gone with 1 conservative approach to reconciling the problem with Exodus 6:3. The other conservative view is somewhat basically what i am putting forward. But again the research here is extensive and i am by no means an expert on it, but i’m sure if you looked into the 2 conservative views that reconcile this problem you will see that i am not a ‘liberal’. The reason i side with my view, is because if we probe your ‘new’ view we have further complications with the gospels. For example, did Jesus perform the same miracles 4 times over, did he say the same parables 4 times over etc etc. I’ll leave this here and hopefully if you choose to look into this further you might see why it is inaccurate to label me a liberal.

” I do not believe that it has been tainted nor that someone later added to God’s Word.”

Not totally sure what you mean by this? Do you think this is what i believe? Can you explain for me how you understand the later redactions on certain texts. For example it is almost universally recognised that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, yet it records his own death. If another writer redacted this at a later date does that make it less ‘inspired’ in your opinion? Or is it some sort of prophecy on Moses behalf about his own death? Can it be redacted but still be preserved to be God’s words? I’d love to know your opinion here so i can better know where you come from when reading scripture…sorry i know its abit off topic.

“Although the term “source” is used for often than anything else, there can be other meanings.”
I’m glad you have said this, it makes it much easier to progress in the arguments.

“It is Andreas Kostenberger who teaches that women will be saved from deception if they continue in their roles as wives and mothers.”
So he is NOT saying it is her works that gives her salvation? Was Lin wrong in what she said about works salvation? His view is that it will just stop her from being deceived right and has nothing to do with her salvation?

“I recently purchased a booklet written by a woman defending women’s freedom to minister the Word of God. It was written in 1666. Hardly a view influenced by “feminism” in 1666. It is a common tactic that CBMW uses and seems to dissuade people from looking at all the women ministers hundreds of years ago. No one wants to pay attention to that because they want to say it is a recent trend. That isn’t true.”
Note what i actually said. I didn’t say people haven’t rejected male leadership until feminism, i said people using ‘source’ as a definition combined with rejecting male leadership is new. I got that from David Garland’s Exegetical Commentary on 1 Corinthians. He might be wrong, i dunno??? Maybe you can point out to me Cheryl, someone before the rise of feminism who used ‘source’ as the basis of the rejection of male leadership. His evidence shows that even scholars who saw kephale as source, still did not reject male headship.

Dave,

“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 authority.”

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?
Also it might surprise you but i have had very little to do with CBMW, in fact ive probably only visited their site a handful of times.

Good night all

sorry that last post was directed at Lin, sorry Kay