Mark

This is just all too tempting to leave alone…Again working backwards.

1. Preciesely Dave- Jesus is the image of the Invisible God. Hence his qualities or homoousious are God, yet he is distinct from the Father. In what way is he distinct- obviously functionality.

2. Cheryl,
   a. “Jesus said that the Father sent him because this connected him to God as His source.”
   b. I don’t see that at all in John 17. Jesus saids “For you (Father) granted him (Jesus) authority over all people…” Continuing on “ I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you (Father) gave me to do…”- John 1: 2, 4…and so we could go on and on showing how Jesus himself distinguished his role from His Father’s. You have done very little in an attempt to reconcile John 17, nor have you discussed 1 Cor 15.

3. Dave, regarding #78. Lets look at the context of Colossians 1. Verse 3= “We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…” Who do you think God is referencing there? Father or Godhead? Since this is the context of Chapter 1 and Paul is using God to mean ‘Father’ how can you reject that in verse 15. Throughout the whole Chapter Paul is interlocking God to mean Father with Jesus as Christ or Lord etc.
   Also you said “Also, who said only the Spirit was hovering over the waters and not the Father, or Jesus? Did they stay at home?” My answer- the bible Gen 1:2 “and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” Let’s face it there is very good reason to think that Paul in verse 3 of 1 Cor 11 is paralleling God the Father with Christ. This is familiar with how he writes in all his epistles.

4. Cheryl, you said “Mark, you are the one who said that anytime head was used with people it meant authority”. I should have been more direct, i agree. But nonetheless i thought you would have realised what i meant from the other paper i sent you.

5. Kay, no i don’t think women should wear head coverings. This was a cultural practice to show the wifes submission to her husband. Our culture does not use a head covering to show a wife’s submission, so i don’t believe it should be enforced.

6. Let me again say about the relationship between chapter 7 and 11. The construction of the grammar indicated to me that chapter 11 was instructing husband/wife over men/women. I said that at the beginning of my paper. However the context and issue Paul is now addressing in chapter 11 is NOT the same as chapter 7, so to over emphasise the link to strongly is wrong.

7. 1 final question. Can people tell me whether they believe that this passage is dealing with husband/wife or men/ women. If the former, and you want to take the meaning ‘source’ for kephale, in what way then is the husband the source of the wife.