pinklight
Active 2007–2012
Tag Cloud
Come on, Mark!! ;P
…OR imbalance in Mark’s case… ;P
Ah, ha! “Balance “is the key word here!
“Your view is the one that does not cater for three being one. Our view does. Our view also deals with one being three. Your view does this too well! You, Mark, are not holding the balance. I do not know how I can state this any more clearly!”
MARK??? How much more can possibly be contributed for communication purposes??
Mark:
“#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?”
Kay’s response to Mark’s comment: #163:
Mark:“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.”
Kay:
“Mark,
I don’t think it is that egals cannot come to terms with differences in subsistence – it is the inferences that comps/hierarchialists make from them that are the main sticking point.”
This is THE point, Mark. Please “work it out”, “deal with it”, “engage” this point!!
“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?”
This logic of yours DOES NOT follow!! And so, again, please “work this out” and respoond. ;P
“That was one very un-backed up statement which we could only excuse IF you are studying hard for your exams!”
LOL! ;P
I meant comments # 160 & 163…
Mark, in #160, 163, 172 Kay has expressed the same points as I would have, though differently. Therefore a reply to THEM would be appropriate and sufficient.
Thank you Mark for responding to my comment! 🙂
Mark: #170″C,mon Kay! I agree that God and indeed the Trinity is beyond us-no doubt…”
Mark, in #161, 163, 172 Kay has expressed the same points as I would have, though differently. Therefore a reply to THEM would be appropriate and sufficient.
This following quote and A Amos Love’s #167 bring everything nicely together:
“The Bible says that the Father raised Jesus, the Son raised Himself and the Holy Spirit raised Jesus. If they can function in the same way in the resurrection and still be unique individuals in one God, then why do you make different ‘roles’ to be the only way that they are distinguished?
The question has been raised – were they not individuals while they worked at the same job?”
What do you say about this Mark?
“Similarly, if the people you’re talking about here are this far off center on these issues, I personally would not trust anything they have to say on any topic in their supposed areas of specialty (the church/theology/Bible interpretation). I think we could be certain that some/many of their other ideas are also off base”
For me Sam, this is a general rule of thumb, excluding motive…I suspect the same thing.
“2. ‘kephale- as I’m sure we are all aware we disagree on this word. If we take this to mean ‘source’ we naturally have to read the passage as man-woman relationships, not husband and wife?”
No. Why would we have to read the passage as man-woman relationships if we take kephale as “source”?? That logic does not follow. Adam and Eve were husband and wife.
- Let God, then, be the Head of Christ, with regard to the conditions of Manhood. Observe that the Scripture says not that the Father is the Head of Christ; but that God is the Head of Christ, because the Godhead, as the creating power, is the Head of the being created. And well said [the Apostle] “the Head of Christ is God;” to bring before our thoughts both the Godhead of Christ and His flesh, implying, that is to say, the Incarnation in the mention of the name of Christ, and, in that of the name of God, oneness of Godhead and grandeur of sovereignty.
Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. X (266).
Why would the Apostle Paul have had a problem penning “the head of Christ is God, the Father if that is what he meant? Could the Holy Spirit miss such an important detail? I don’t think so.
“Since man is the head of woman, even as Christ is the Head of the Church;”26 whilst in the words following he has added: “Who gave Himself for her.”27 After His Incarnation, then, is Christ the head of man, for His self-surrender issued from His Incarnation.”
The first time Christ is said to be “head” is AFTER his death.
“It is our preference for English meanings that causes a presumption of authority and then we ignore THE FACT that authority is never even on the RADAR when Paul uses “head of”.”
LOL!
“Guys, you tell me, is it really in all or most men to want to have superiority over women so that it is easy to read this into the text?”
I think it applies to men who are married or want to be. 🙂 Back to Adam and Eve we go in Gen 3…
“To me, the problem is that it is the height of presumption for finite humans (not specifically you -any of us) to presume to be able to place ‘order’ in the Trinity (as in sub-ordination of the Son).”
The END.
“This creation order was necessary since creating Eve before Adam would not have allowed her to be made out of his body. She would then have been made out of dirt as he was and they would not have the intimate union of one flesh dividing and coming back together.”
And there would have been no foreshadowing of Christ and the Church – the mystery – Eph 5.
“I think Paul is refering to husband and wife since the context IS a reference to Adam and Eve (woman made for and from man), but Christ being the “head” of every “aner” I’m undecided as to whether he meant males or humans beings. I don’t see how men and women in general can even fit into this passage.”
Cheryl, help me out here. Can women and men in genral fit the passage/context?
“Nowhere else is God said to be the “head” of Christ so we cannot know what Paul means until we understand the connection between the three sets of “heads”. The connection is origins and that is clear in verse 8.”
THIS is really GOOD!! Thanks Cheryl!!
“It is not unlikely at all since “Christ” is the man. The eternal God in the person of the LORD of hosts was never called “Christ” except in prophesy. Because Paul says that the “head” of Christ is God and not the “head” of The Word is God, we can be sure that this is talking about the incarnation.”
We are moving forward!!! 🙂
“But “Christ” is only “Christ” from His incarnation. “Christ” is the term for the time that He took on flesh. “Christ” as the fleshly man had a beginning but the Word who became flesh did not have a beginning. So the source of Christ (who had a beginning in the flesh) is God.”
This is GOOD!
“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…”
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…
“Why are you assuming it is husband/wife? Do you think there were no women attending the church who had unbelieving husbands? No widows? Their uncovering in worship could have been scandalous in that day and time. It could be cause for divorce.”
I think Paul is refering to husband and wife since the context IS a reference to Adam and Eve (woman made for and from man), but Christ being the “head” of every “aner” I’m undecided as to whether he meant males or humans beings. I don’t see how men and women in general can even fit into this passage.
The end of Eph 5…
Eph 5 (Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 and the point is WHAT preceeds Gensis 2:24)
After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31″For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
Genesis 2
The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman, ‘
for she was taken out of man.”
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
“…because the husband is not the source of his wife.”
Have you read the end of Eph 5 lately? ;P
“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!”
I was looking at 2 Co 4 earlier today and had started already to become suspicious of just THAT, Dave!! 🙂
Amen!!
IMO, the simplest way that the issue of the meaning of kephale is resolved once and for all or made irrelevent in the comp-egal debate, or shown to not mean “authority” is determined by who Paul is refering to when he writes “God”, 1 Co 11.
Once it is determined that in 1 Co 11, “God” means the Godhead rather than the Father all other bets are off.
And truthseeker, if you don’t re-post your comment #110 from the link below, I will do it for you ;P
The point of dragging my last comment over here is that contextual evidence of Paul’s use of “God” shows that kephale doesn’t mean authority. Since God (Godhead) is the head of Christ, there is no authority/subordination relationship between the Father and Christ because Paul is not refering to the Father when he says that “God” is the head of Christ.
For those who have not been over the context of Paul uasge of the term “God” throughout the passage of 1 Co 11, I’ve copied and pasted a comment I put up here:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/04/20/hierarchical-teaching-influences-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
The complementarian foundation for the subordination of Christ in the Trinity is the complementarian interpretation of 1 Co 11:3, that is, verse 3 as isolated from the rest of the passage and interpreted in hierarchal fashion, being that “God” in v3 (meaning the Father) is the “head” (meaning authority) of Christ, yet all the the other four uses of “God” in the rest of the passage (vv. 7, 12, 13, & 16) show that “God” in 1 Co 11 means the “Godhead” rather than “the Father”.
Man is the image of God (Godhead) v7, not the Father alone, everything comes from God (Godhead) v12, not the Father alone, Paul is asking the Corinthians to judge for themselves whether or not it is proper for a woman to pray to God (Godhead) v13, not the Father alone, and Paul refers to the churches as “the churches of God” (the churches of the Godhead) v16, not the churches of the Father!
And so it seems to me that complementarians have alot of explaining to do since the passage glaringly shows that the Godhead is the kephale (translated, “head”) of Christ showing that the idea that the Father is the head of Christ is a myth, something that is read into the passage by isolating one single verse – v3. I think then that complementarians have an impossible task at hand which is to show that all the uses of “God” in the passage mean the Father rather than the Godhead. I would love to see complementarians deal with this.
7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
“What exactly was the “pastoral problem, namely the issue between the husbands/wives” that is being addressed by this portion of scripture?”
sm, good question, but Paul doesn’t mention a thing about some pastoral problem. Mark?