Head "OF" or head "OVER" .....

[Emily~Anne]

Hey, has anyone seen my dead horse? Oh, here it is.

[OopsMartin]

OK so far:

1. the male was created first which gave him priority over the female

2. because God called the woman a "helper", that indicated her role as assistant to the man

3. because the woman was deceived and the man sinned deliberately, that is why the man was given "headship" over the woman?

4. because the substance of the woman was drawn from the man and not created separately, this gives the man "headship" over the woman

All right, I would say this is enough to address for now.

So I would like to ask everyone to please stick to discussing these four issues. That will be confusing enough. there is always time to discuss other aspects.

A sincere request: PLEASE REFRAIN FROM WASTING SPACE WITH SMART ALECKY POSTS! Anyone who get's smart alecky with me, I will be ignoring your posts. I don't know how old you all are but I'm 64 and just have no desire to go there. It is my hope for some true respectful discussion. Disagreements will be difficult enough to handle with grace without garbage being thrown around. We're all adults so let's act like it.

I'll be back shortly.

[apothanein kerdos]

The concept of head as "source" is well documented in both classical and Christian antiquity and has been long accepted by scholars. Some evangelicals, however, have shown a reluctance to deal with the data

[Emily~Anne]

I think we should address the issue of kephale that AK posted about first. The issues you are arguing Oops, sounds like more of an issue you need to take up with God.

[OopsMartin]

Kevin Giles, The Trinity & Subordinationism, chapter 8

"Commentators have often pointed out that being created second does not infer inferiority or subordination. There is no logical force in this argument whatsoever. In Genesis 1, man and woman are created last yet stad supreme over creation. John Calvin, with his usual clarity of thought, says, as we have noted already, "Paul's argument that woman is subject because she was created second, does not seem very strong, for John the Baptist went before Christ in time and yet was far inferior to him. It is true that according to Genesis 2 woman was created second, but nothing should be made of this descriptive observation because nothing is made of it in Genesis. OT texts must be allowed to speak for themselves. An interpretation of an OT text in the NT does not determine its historical meaning."

The outstanding point that Giles makes here, that we should not be making points of doctrine where Scripture does not do so, is primary. Whenever God makes a Law, we know it is a law because it directly states so, not just once but several times. Every law has it's foundation in two witnesses. IOW it is spoken of at least twice when it is being established.

Nothing in Genesis one or two set up a law of authority determined by order of creation. We can make assumptions, but God does not set up laws by OUR ASSUMPTIONS. He always directly tells us.

I'll talk more about this, but this is enough to cross off reason #1 that we assume man is supposedly "given" priority over woman because he was created first.

[apothanein kerdos]

I think we should address the issue of kephale that AK posted about first. The issues you are arguing Oops, sounds like more of an issue you need to take up with God.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that my point goes ignored from here on out.

[firehill]

OK so far:

1. the male was created first which gave him priority over the female

2. because God called the woman a "helper", that indicated her role as assistant to the man

3. because the woman was deceived and the man sinned deliberately, that is why the man was given "headship" over the woman?

4. because the substance of the woman was drawn from the man and not created separately, this gives the man "headship" over the woman

All right, I would say this is enough to address for now.

So I would like to ask everyone to please stick to discussing these four issues. That will be confusing enough. there is always time to discuss other aspects.

Yes, let's stick to discussing these four issues for now. We need order in our discussion.

I think a great place to start is naturaly at the very beginning in Genesis at creation!

[rtwo]

I think we should address the issue of kephale that AK posted about first. The issues you are arguing Oops, sounds like more of an issue you need to take up with God.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that my point goes ignored from here on out.

I'd say you're probably right. I believe the husband is the head of the home, and not for any one of the four reasons outlined. The fact that the Bible says so isn't one of the four points outlined, so I guess that one's not up for discussion, though...

[apothanein kerdos]

I think we should address the issue of kephale that AK posted about first. The issues you are arguing Oops, sounds like more of an issue you need to take up with God.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that my point goes ignored from here on out.

I'd say you're probably right. I believe the husband is the head of the home, and not for any one of the four reasons outlined. The fact that the Bible says so isn't one of the four points outlined, so I guess that one's not up for discussion, though...

Well the Egalitarians will continue to try to structure the debate to their standards because:

1) It gives them control over the discussion

2) If they can't respond they can merely say we're going "off topic"

3) They don't want to deal with the argument that kephale, in Koine, can only mean "authority"

4) They don't really want to deal with Scripture, because it proves them wrong

[firehill]

I think we should address the issue of kephale that AK posted about first. The issues you are arguing Oops, sounds like more of an issue you need to take up with God.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that my point goes ignored from here on out.

I'd say you're probably right. I believe the husband is the head of the home, and not for any one of the four reasons outlined. The fact that the Bible says so isn't one of the four points outlined, so I guess that one's not up for discussion, though...

We can discuss that later.