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

[OopsMartin]

Based on the responses and such at this point, may we assume that points one through four are not in contention? Nobody who is on this thread appears to be using any one of those points as a basis for their belief, and as such, find no need to debate them.

Are you saying that you do not accept those 4 points as valid?

I'm saying they have nothing to do with my belief that the husband is the head of the house, and that nobody else here is debating the point. Just trying to move the discussion along.

Well, that is good to know, but you aren't the only person reading this. There are others who do believe in those four points. For that reason, I am going to discuss my and other's view of them. Also, I believe in order and laying foundations. The beginning is a reasonable place to begin.

As for "moving the discussion along", I'm in no hurry. In fact I've appointments and life to tend to, so we will be going slowly. There is no place to get to in a hurry.

If you have some particular points you hope to discuss as we go along, may I suggest that you write them down and store them on your computer. You can even start collecting information from other sources. When we then get to what you want to discuss, you will be prepared.

[rtwo]

Based on the responses and such at this point, may we assume that points one through four are not in contention? Nobody who is on this thread appears to be using any one of those points as a basis for their belief, and as such, find no need to debate them.

Are you saying that you do not accept those 4 points as valid?

I'm saying they have nothing to do with my belief that the husband is the head of the house, and that nobody else here is debating the point. Just trying to move the discussion along.

Well, that is good to know, but you aren't the only person reading this. There are others who do believe in those four points. For that reason, I am going to discuss my and other's view of them. Also, I believe in order and laying foundations. The beginning is a reasonable place to begin.

As for "moving the discussion along", I'm in no hurry. In fact I've appointments and life to tend to, so we will be going slowly. There is no place to get to in a hurry.

If you have some particular points you hope to discuss as we go along, may I suggest that you write them down and store them on your computer. You can even start collecting information from other sources. When we then get to what you want to discuss, you will be prepared.

It's true I'm not the only one reading this... but it is also apparent that the others who are reading this are also not arguing them. By "move the discussion along", perhaps I should have added "amicably", which is part of my intent and purpose. Though I can understand your desire to address those points for those interested, said parties are not in sight. I am also very aware of and appreciative of the desire to do things in an orderly fashon; however, first things being first, it appears that when things dissolved into argument for the sake of such, the intent of the OP (the discussion of the word Kephale) was lost. It is this original question that is being sought after now.

However, if you do prefer to lay a foundation, since it is clear you have the desire to do so, and presumably some points to make concerning these foundational issues, might I then humbly suggest of everyone a sort of truce while this foundation is being laid?

In other words, that Oops lay the foundation he wishes to lay (seeing no argument about them per se, rather than demand discussion of these points, simply say what you want to say), and that the others exhibit patience in permitting him time to do so? Look at it as a compromise. I say this not to moderate or insinuate myself into a position of authority over this discussion, but rather in the interest of maintaining our mandate by Christ to speak to eachother in love.

[apothanein kerdos]

Ah, so it's "rude" to bring up valid arguments that no one will respond to?

No. It's good to remind people of important arguments they dropped, but we are well beyond that point. They haven't answered some of my arguments either. Oh well. What can you do?

-Neopatriarch

Keep bringing them back to the point.

The problem is if they can get away with it now, when they run into another problem then can't answer, they'll just change the subject again. It creates an atmosphere where a one sided debate occurs and one side cannot get pinned, no matter what. It's unfair.

[OopsMartin]

however, first things being first, it appears that when things dissolved into argument for the sake of such, the intent of the OP (the discussion of the word Kephale) was lost. It is this original question that is being sought after now.

AHEM..... I am the OP. check post #1

The purpose of the thread is about "headship" or no "headship" in marriage and not only to discuss the meaning of kephale. It will come in later. but first there is a foundation to be laid as well as to dispute other foundations. I have every intention of addressing that but not yet.

When I feel the first 4 points have been discussed sufficiently, then I will be proceeding to Gen. 3:16. But the first 4 points have not been covered yet. And as you likely know there are some other points that are brought up in the OT, before we go into the NT.

[rtwo]

however, first things being first, it appears that when things dissolved into argument for the sake of such, the intent of the OP (the discussion of the word Kephale) was lost. It is this original question that is being sought after now.

AHEM..... I am the OP. check post #1

The purpose of the thread is about "headship" or no "headship" in marriage and not only to discuss the meaning of kephale. It will come in later. but first there is a foundation to be laid as well as to dispute other foundations. I have every intention of addressing that but not yet.

When I feel the first 4 points have been discussed sufficiently, then I will be proceeding to Gen. 3:16. But the first 4 points have not been covered yet. And as you likely know there are some other points that are brought up in the OT, before we go into the NT.

Very well... and this is why I suggested laying the foundation you wish to lay.

[apothanein kerdos]

however, first things being first, it appears that when things dissolved into argument for the sake of such, the intent of the OP (the discussion of the word Kephale) was lost. It is this original question that is being sought after now.

AHEM..... I am the OP. check post #1

The purpose of the thread is about "headship" or no "headship" in marriage and not only to discuss the meaning of kephale. It will come in later. but first there is a foundation to be laid as well as to dispute other foundations. I have every intention of addressing that but not yet.

When I feel the first 4 points have been discussed sufficiently, then I will be proceeding to Gen. 3:16. But the first 4 points have not been covered yet. And as you likely know there are some other points that are brought up in the OT, before we go into the NT.

I don't care who you are.

The OP dealt with Headship, so I'm going to deal with Headship. Your entire first post all dealt with kephale. Don't make a topic if you don't intend to stick to the OP. The title of the topic is "Head OF vs. Head OVER" - there is no mention of the creation of man in the title or in the OP.

This is a forum, you don't control it. Members are free to respond to the original post so long as it doesn't distract from the original post (OP).

[OopsMartin]

however, first things being first, it appears that when things dissolved into argument for the sake of such, the intent of the OP (the discussion of the word Kephale) was lost. It is this original question that is being sought after now.

AHEM..... I am the OP. check post #1

The purpose of the thread is about "headship" or no "headship" in marriage and not only to discuss the meaning of kephale. It will come in later. but first there is a foundation to be laid as well as to dispute other foundations. I have every intention of addressing that but not yet.

When I feel the first 4 points have been discussed sufficiently, then I will be proceeding to Gen. 3:16. But the first 4 points have not been covered yet. And as you likely know there are some other points that are brought up in the OT, before we go into the NT.

Very well... and this is why I suggested laying the foundation you wish to lay.

Fair enough. I will address again and in more detail how I wish to approach this, when I return. As I said, this cannot be done in a hurry. I've life responsibilities to tend to.

[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]

Here's what I think the Oopsmartin and others are doing. They want to focus on one very teeny part of scripture and keep all the focus on one teeny part and rationalize away with human reasoning and twist it to a whole new meaning before they even look at the rest of scripture, in hopes of perhaps invalidating everything else God's word has to say on the matter?

Genesis 2:18 (King James Version)

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Genesis 2:23 (King James Version)

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Timothy 2:9-14 (King James Version)

9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Corinthians 11:3 (King James Version)

3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 5:22-33 (King James Version)

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Colossians 3:18-21 (New International Version)

Rules for Christian Households

18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

21Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.

Titus 2:3-5 (King James Version)

3The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Peter 3:1-7 (King James Version)

1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

[ted]

To all,

We have had at least 5 reports dealing with this thread. Normally, that's enough to close it down and either kill it for good, or take it away for cleansing before releasing it out again for public consumption. Although the number 5 is not a hard and fast number when dealing with reports, usually that gives us an indication that a particular thread is troublesome enough to merit some form of moderation.

Personally, I think this thread has some great points, and could serve to open some ground in some form or fashion. The subject at hand is interesting enough that many here could benefit from it's continued discussion. In order for it to survive, however, certain things are going to have to happen.

We have to remain clear and free of a heart which could result in insulting posts when dealing with the subject. Remember to make the issue the issue, and not the person. By doing that, you remain above the fray and do your part to keep the subject flowing in a natural motion. Once we dive into personal issues, the water gets muddy and the river chokes.

If there are things which you have in your mind, but might detract from the original intent of the thread, you may feel free to split a topic off and create a new thread, PM another member with your concerns, or even employ the "Ignore" feature to eliminate the urge to engage in personal matters.

Keep you focus above and in front of you, and above all else, remember that your Father is watching.

Thank you!

Peace,

t.