Mark

Sue,

We are not really getting anywhere here, and we are getting off topic quite a bit.
History is helpful to help us in this instance to see how the fathers understood the NT teaching, and thus how they understood the NT grammar and words. Doesn’t necessarily mean they are right, but it at least sheds light on the proper interpretation of words.

That said, how can you as a greek scholar continualy maintain that what comps are arguing for in regards to kephale is not correct?

First, you don’t trust lexicons, nor do you put any weight to history- how can you possibly be trusted to give a clear understanding into the meaning of kephale? How can you offer us a proper meaning for kephale if you ignore the experts of the past and present, aswell the very people who spoke the language and drew their theological conclusions from it? What then do you base your interpretation upon? Your pre-conceived guidelines on what is morally right and wrong.

I’m not sure how much time you’ve spent in thinking about an alternative meaning, but i’d love to know what it is. It isn’t source and it isn’t authority- what is it? Most of what i’ve read from you focuses so heavily on disproving Grudem, that an alternative has not been mentioned. Maybe i’ve missed it somewhere?