pinklight

To be more precise…is the man the image of God or the Father?

7A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

Who’s “God” in verse 7? Was Adam made in God’s image or the Father’s?

“pinklight,

often with Paul ‘God’ is refering to the father. Generally when Paul cites Jesus he refers to him as ‘Lord’(kurios). Hope that helps a little.”

Thanks, Mark. So do you think that Paul is meaning in 1 Co 11:12
that “all things come from the Father” excluding the other persons of the Trinity?

Why would Paul confuse using the same word “God” twice (vv. 3 & 12) but with different meanings each time he used it within the same passage?? Why would Paul confuse by writing “God” first to mean the Father in v3 only to turn around and use the same word again, a second time in v12 to mean something else, the Godhead?? There is no way that v12 (“all things come from God”) can be shown to mean “the Father” since the Father alone is not the Creator.

“theos” is the word translated as ‘God’ there in I Cor. 11:3 – it means the Godhead/the Trinity – according to Strong’s.

I believe that “God” is also used to refer to the Father alone in different scriptures. I’d have to check to make sure though.

“Power and authority is one of the essentials of the Godhead so saying that Jesus in the Trinity has less than full and complete authority would mean that Jesus is somehow less than fully God in His essence.”

I like the way you said this, Cheryl.

The very words written down absolutely say nothing about Father and Son. There is absolutely NO support within the passage/context to formulate an idea that it’s talking about the Father/Son relationship NOR Christ’s eternal relationship to the Father. There is nadda, zilch!

Who’s God in 1 Co 11:3 is what I meant to say!

Who’s the “head” of Christ in v3? Is it the Godhead or the Father? The passage only provides a context (v12) for the Godhead. What else is there? If I’m missing something/fact/evidence then someone please show me?

“Couldn’t have been an apple. Apple’s have seeds, so they were among the allowed fruit.”

;P

Let me fine tune my last comment:

Who’s “God” in 1 Co 11? How do we know for a fact whether or not “God” is refering to the Father or to the Godhead? Can anyone here prove which one “God” refers to? If all things come from God (1 Co 11:12) and since Christ is also creator/God then logicaly “God” refers to the Godhead here according to the context, v12. What other evidence is there in the passage??

How fitting spam word is “micro” ;P

Who’s “God” in 1 Co 11? How do we know for a fact whether or not “God” is refering to the Father or to the Godhead? Can anyone here prove which one “God” refers to? If all things come from God (1 Co 11:12) and since Christ is also creator then logicaly “God” refers to the Godhead here according to the context, v12. What other evidence is there in the passage??

“…but I have never been one to get too caught up trying to determine what historical figures have said.”

Me neither!

It’s black and white really. Proof please cause without it we are NOT honoring God’s ways.

And I know that others don’t care whether or not they can prove their stance or disprove their opposition, but I have to say, that to me is like worse than the twilight zone. I just don’t get that.

Thanks for the rant!

I personaly do not know what the whole of the historic church supports or doesn’t regarding whatever view of the Trinity, but I do know this, if a passage alone without a doubt cannot support whichever type of of view of the Trinity, then it really doesn’t matter either way what the leaders of the historic church thought or taught as any one’s views are secondary to the written word. Proof positive is what it all comes down to. And I don’t see justification for any doctrine that cannot be proven without a doubt from the scriptures, and to me anything other is just lame.

We can believe that Adam ate an apple if we want to (except even that can be disproven) but really who cares if we can’t prove our stance? I couldn’t expect anyone to take me seriously if I was like “I believe in this scripturaly but I can’t prove it scripturaly.” How silly.

“Chrysostom lived in an era where men were considered superior to women. It is unfortunate that he interpreted many things within that thinking. However, Chrysostom was able to rise above this thinking when he honored Junia as a female apostle.”

I think this shows that he was an honest man…as misguided as he was on other things.

“So, you see, we do not deny the order of creation in Genesis. But as far as its relation to marriage, or gender based authority in general, based on the truth in the bible including both godly decisions and the teaching of Jesus, we are led, and even admonished, to exclaim “so what”!”

I believe Paul said “so what” for us in 1 Co 11 v12:

11 But among the Lord’s people, women are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women. 12 For although the first woman came man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God.

;P

“This is precisely the issue I have. Egalitarians argue that there is no creation order in Gen, then when we look at this passage in Corinthians the answer changes from’ no creation order’ to ‘so what’, it ‘means nothing’ using your own words. It is inconsistent, do you believe there is a creation order but it means nothing, or do you believe there is no creation order?”

I would like to be pointed to one word written by Paul in 1 Co 11 about Adam being created first and then Eve – “creation order”. All I can precisley read are words like “from” and “for” specificaly talking about “origin” not “order”. To think that Paul is talking about “order” is reading into the text because the words that would tell us he’s talking about “order” (which he knows how to write about as in 1 Tim 2) do not exist in the passage. I think the exact things and words that Pauls writes are important.

“The authority over another paradigm keeps you from the true message of this passage.”

I agree. But why the paradigm? Simply, because of the meaning of the English word “head”.

I’m still fascinated at how we managed to turn “the man” into plural??!! It’s like, (now that I see it) what in the world??

“I am not the one speaking in generalities here. I am speaking to specifics. Wouldn’t it be a matter of church discipline to make certain that only those “qualified” to preach and teach were doing so?”

And I think that’s the point with any of this. The answers are in the details, not the ignoring of them…Adam didn’t eat an apple.

“For it was used by the Arians to argue that since the man was in “authority over” the woman, because he was superior in being and function; therefore, since the Father was in “authority over” the Son, he was superior and the Son was inferior.”

I did not know this Frank!!?? I didn’t know that the same line of reasoning was used basing their view of the Father and Son on how they viewed Adam and Eve!!?? Wow.

Oops.I typed in the wrong e-mail for my last comment so it’s in moderation box! ;P

“It is no longer sufficient for you to baselessly claim that kephale “was never used in relation between PEOPLE without the notion of authority”, you must prove it. No more circular reasoning, arguments from silence, and simply “sayin’ it’s so”.”

Now that’s what we need for any comp to be held to! It comes down to PROOF and that’s well, the end all. ;P

Something I always thought was worth noting in regards to creation order, Adam first then Eve, is that when Paul does write about it in 1 Tim 2, he doesn’t write about “head”. If we want to look at Paul writing on “head”, (Eph 5, 1 Co 11) we can’t find creation order, and when we want to look at Paul writing on creation order (1 Tim 2) we can’t find “head”. In 1 Co 11 Paul write on “origin” and at the end of the Eph 5 passage he points to “origin” also. Thought this was interesting when I noticed awhile back.

“I just think it you want kephale to be either a physical head or authority in this passage you are introducing something foreign to the text. The only mention of authorities in the passage is where they find their origin…in Jesus!”

I think this is an important point – how does the context define the term?! Since the term is disputed it should be the context that we should look to for the PROOF of what it means. 🙂 And if it cannot be proven that it means “authority” from the context then we must ask what that is??

“Once again he has swapped ”submission” for ”subordination” – but this time in relation to God with us! He will stop at nothing!”

Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! ;P

“And when Deborah was judging Israel (Judges 4) do they think her husband, Lappidoth, was excluded. It does not say, “Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging everyone in Israel *except her husband*, at that time.” It appears that Israel, meant Israel.”

You know that’s always lingered in the back of my mind. I’m glad you brought it up.

I went back to reference the last post and noticed that the comments for it post arn’t showing up. They stop at like #21. Hum…

“I would like to see a list of pre fall NON biological attributes of men and women. Where does God say, women will think like this and men will think like that. Where does God say women will be more emotional and men will be stoic? How much of how we view the genders in terms of non biological attributes comes from post fall behavior and is cultural from centuries of nurturing?”

I agree with Kay and Lin. I think this kind of thing is very important to consider.

“What’s interesting is that God’s image (equality of essence, humanity) to the comp is not considered proof of equality of function and that the reason why is because inequality of function is based on sex which was not made in God’s image. I just think that that’s very interesting.”

I’m serial posting again lol! ;P

K, still thinking about what I put above.

So what does one’s sex have to do with the functions of protecting, being a help, teaching or leading? Are they human (God’s image) functions or gender functions? Are they of the essence of our humanity or our sex? Like what’s behind the essence of these functions? Humanity or sex? Am trying to wrap my mind around this issue by thinking out loud and asking questions.