Mark

Sue,

I appreciate your interaction very much. BUt let me straighten a few things out. First, you quoted Cyril and asked me to give you evidence for my position…not vice versa. This i have done. You now ask me for pre-NT data? I thought that we covered this one…i.e the LXX. There IS evidence in the LXX for my position, and there IS NOT evidence in the LXX for a ‘source’ meaning.

I think thought that you have hit a nail on the head. Much of your research has been to disprove a comp theology, yet you cannot offer anyone an alternative. Although i disagree that your research proves as much as other people state, i wonder why you cannot offer an alternative understanding. Can you please inform this blog and it’s followers that ‘source’ is clearly NOT an appropriate alternative and thus, all interpretations that argue for such, a simply unsupportable. If people here were truly interested in your research they would except your conclusions on this!

If we could at least all agree on this, we could proceed in the discussion. For me, it seems like a waste of time to argue for a ‘source’ meaning for the NT when there is no extrabiblical evidence for such a meaning of kephale. I wont argue for my position, i’d rather work through the ‘possible’ meanings first, but we need to agree that source is not factually supported. Are people willing to admit that?