Mark

Ok working backwards and then i must clean my house, since my wife will be home today and i have exam prep notes scattered all over my lounge room.

1. I do love the way Egals always fall back to old mate Cyril as if he determines all. Let’s share abit about him. First he is 5th Century AD and of course is interpreting his view of scripture. If you want to rely on him Cheryl, why not introduce the many other early theologians who didn’t see it the way Cyril did. Now that would be a fair account of history. In fact the people closest to Jesus and Paul in the early centuries, never interpreted the scriptures this way…let’s not ignore that.

2. Gengwell- in 1 Cor 12 does the text in the slightest state that person a is the ‘head’ of person b. No it doesn’t! And every other account we have of person a being the head of person b, it is ALWAYS understood authoritatively. The use of ‘kephale’ in these texts is in no way similar what so ever…
   a. “Show me where Paul either says or implies that this passage has to do with who is in charge in the marriage. From what I understand from your earlier posts, this passage has to do with “formal church”, not the chain of command in marriage. So show me.”
   The whole implication lies in the point that by not covering her head, or the husband covering his head, he/she dishonours the ‘head’ above them- pretty obvious i would think. Not to mention Paul’s progression of verse 10 “For this reason…” and make sure we ask for what reason, the answer being that Eve was made from and for Adam, a wife should have authority on her head.
   Also in regard to Church, i do believe this passage lies in the same section as 12-14, but Paul is addressing wives/husbands within that Church. To accept this as generic men/women is poor exegesis in my opinion and fails to recognise the proper understanding of kephale and Paul’s argument of the passage.

3. Again in relation to verse 11 and 12, do not separate it from the rest of Paul’s argument. Doing this distorts the text and ignores the grammar. Note also in my introduction how i see this as relating back to Gen 2- this might help people understand what i am saying.

4. Cheryl, i don’t have a problem with seeing verse 12 as meaning God the Father. Note with Colossians 1:15, just a verse before the one you quoted- “He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God( Father), so here is just one small example to support my view. Note also in relation to things coming from God, it was God the Father who spoke, God the Son who did it and God the Spirit who was hovering over the waters. So yes all things do come from God the Father. If you dispute that Paul uses Theos to mean the Father primarily, please show me why you believe this. Am i allowed to quote gengwell…”just because you say it’s so, doesn’t mean it’s so”

Also if people feel i have a wrong view of the Trinity please explain why Jesus saids the ‘Father’ sent him, and what the significance of 1 Cor 15 is. As yet i have never heard an egal reconcile these issues.