Kay,

I understood you to be meaning that in 1 Cor 11:3, the man/woman relationship cannot be understood in the same way as the Christ/God relationship, and thus we should not use human analogies in relation to understand God…is this what you were meaning? Because what you said in #171, didn’t really seem to have anything to do with what you said in #169 to me, but i might just not be understanding you.

Pinklight,
i think i understand your questions. If not correct me please.

161- “If Jesus is only the image of the Father but not the Godhead, how do you explain this?:

“Who, being in very nature God (theos),
did not consider equality with God(theos) something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.” Phil 2:6-7″

Like i have said previously Paul often uses ‘Theos’ to refer to the Father. I think the same is obvious here in Phillipians. Look how the rest of the passage finishes.

” 9 ?Therefore ?God has ?highly exalted him and bestowed on him a?the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus b?every knee should bow, c?in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and ?every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is ?Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

163- not really sure what you want me to say about this one?

172- same again as above????

Now it is asked why do i distinguish- my response: simply because the bible does. The Son is NEVER said to send the Father, adn it is heretical to think the Father was crucified on the cross. Likewise the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son not vice verse. So i am simply showing scripture. According the Amos Love’s interpretation, it must then mean that the Father, Son and Spirit were all crucified! Is this what people really want to believe?