Mark

I’m rather shocked everyone…you simply follow Sue’s suggestion that Chrysostom is irrelevant.

Let’s be honest about this. Claims were made that outside the NT, kephale never means authority. I have shown this easily false, so now the argument slims down to a closer period around the NT. I’m happy with that but let’s re-examine the information then.

Sue- please inform all readers when your ‘proof’ for ‘source’ was written? Please put it in perspective for everyone. I know when it was written but maybe others do not. That way we can all see how accurate your research is, and how relevant it is to the NT. Since you reject Chrysostom, please explain how Cyril is relevant.

However, i do agree that Chrysostom is not proof that kephale meant authority in the NT- but that was not my primary interest. My interest was to show Sue’s challenge false. Please give a relevant time field therefore to see what kephale means. Is 100BC-200AD relevant or is that too broad?

Last point- Sue why therefore do you think that Liddell Scott is a good lexicon. It goes against the whole argument you just brought up. You think Chrysostom is irrelavent proof, yet you put most reliance on a lexicon that covers a 1500year period of Greek? This sort of reasoning gets out of control and completely inconsistent- am i the only one that sees this?