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

[Openly Curious]

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

[OopsMartin]

Emily wrote:

God created woman because he said it s not good for man to be alone, and so he created woman as a help meet.

Very good Emily. Just keep in mind that woman

[Openly Curious]

'firehill'

Ask Neo, OC and Wayne Grudem and company. They all and many others believe that God created the man with authority over the woman and that woman was created under him. Indeed they believe that sequential creation of the two (even 1 Timothy mentions the man being created first...!) 1 Co 11

I count it a priviledge to be named among such men as Wayne Grudem. Thank you for that firehill it is an honor.

OC

[apothanein kerdos]

'firehill'

Ask Neo, OC and Wayne Grudem and company. They all and many others believe that God created the man with authority over the woman and that woman was created under him. Indeed they believe that sequential creation of the two (even 1 Timothy mentions the man being created first...!) 1 Co 11

I count it a priviledge to be named among such men as Wayne Grudem. Thank you for that firehill it is an honor.

OC

lol, at least you got counted with him. I was put opposed to such a great thinker.

[Openly Curious]

'OopsMartin'

OC, there is some serious misunderstanding going on here.

The word "man" in that verse is not the Hebrew "ish" which is male human. The word is the Hebrew word "adham" which means human. It does NOT mean male human. When God said let us make man in our image He was NOT saying let us make the male human in our image; He was saying let us make humankind in our image, and they will be male and female. The female human is equally in the image of God as the male human.

First off I agree there is some serious misunderstanding going on here but it is "not" with me. God did make the first man Adam male and in God's image. To refute that fact you are only refuting scriptures straight up. Where in the world do you think quote "HUMANKIND" came from if it was not talking and starting with Adam the first man or earthly father of all living? Adam bore the image of God as the Godhead goes like this God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. I believe the Father and Son is in the male tense unless you want to deny it. No the female is not equally in the image of God but she is the glory of man as she was taken out of man that is what the word says and you are only twisting it.

Secondly God is not male. Maleness and femaleness is determined throughout ALL created creatures by genetalia. God created gender. Gender is not how we are created in God's image. God is spirit.

Where do you get this stuff from what part of God the Father, God the Son don't you understand not being male of course I realize that those who push the feminist doctrine always have to do away with the Godhead being male and they have to try to make the sexes equal and it is the biggest lie and contrary to Holy scriptures.

Are you trying to suggest to my mind that when God created gender he didn't give genetalia to Adam and Eve surely not.

Yes God is spirit but God has form in the spirit. In the book of Daniel God's hand came in and wrote on the wall. Elijah said he seen a cloud like a man's hand when it hadn't rained for a long time. Stephen when being stoned saw the Godhead and Christ seated on the right hand of God. Moses saw HIS back parts and some saw the very feet of God in Exodus. God created MAN and WOMAN.

While God does have characteristics that we like to view as masculine or feminine, that also does not mean that God is masculine or feminine or both. God is Spirit. Though God chooses to relate to us in more masculine images, metaphors, analogies, and characteristics, that does not make Him male. God created gender, He is not bound by it. Gender was created for created beings. We need it, God does not.

God is our Heavenly Father and should be addressed as such as it was through his only begotten Son that we have been given access to the Father. We as believers are in the family of God you figure that out and get back to me on it.

Christ is 100% human and 100% God. This does NOT make His Divinity male, neither does it make His humanity divine. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. God our Creator never changes, never diminishes. Christ is BOTH human AND Divine. It is a miracle that we will likely never comprehend in this life. It is the same miracle where God placed His seed into a human woman. Thus God clothed Himself in human flesh in order to come to earth and sacrifice Himself for our salvation. These are deep spiritual realities that our finite minds have difficulty truly understanding.

Jesus when he came up out of that tomb the third day was very much male read John 21, Acts 1 and I must say that I understand the things you have mentioned the deep spiritual realities that my finite mind suppose to have difficulty understanding.

When God was asked WHO He was, His answer was "I AM"

[Emily~Anne]

[name=OopsMartin' date='May 23 2007, 11:16 PM' post='864948]

Emily wrote:

God created woman because he said it s not good for man to be alone, and so he created woman as a help meet.

Very good Emily. Just keep in mind that woman

[firehill]

'firehill'

Ask Neo, OC and Wayne Grudem and company. They all and many others believe that God created the man with authority over the woman and that woman was created under him. Indeed they believe that sequential creation of the two (even 1 Timothy mentions the man being created first...!) 1 Co 11

I count it a priviledge to be named among such men as Wayne Grudem. Thank you for that firehill it is an honor.

OC

lol, at least you got counted with him. I was put opposed to such a great thinker.

Thanks for the laugh, AK, REALLY.

I won't comment this moment on this so-called 'great thinker.'

[Neopatriarch]

And I'm discussing the foundations that hierarchalists and authoritarians use to lay that doctrine on.

No you're not. You're creating a straw-man. This entire thread is a sham.

Ask Neo, OC and Wayne Grudem and company. They all and many others believe that God created the man with authority over the woman and that woman was created under him. Indeed they believe that sequential creation of the two (even 1 Timothy mentions the man being created first...!) and the woman's derivation (1 Co 11 mentions that) are main bricks in the foundation they create for gender hierarchy.

Most egals I've discussed this with don't simply reject gender hierarchy, they reject the idea that there are normative gender roles altogether. For them, gender is ultimately an arbitrary social construct. Comps do not go this far. The particular expression of gender roles may differ from culture to culture, so you could say those aspects are socially constructed, but the basic norms are determined by God. Our understanding of what it means to be a man versus what it means to be a woman should be informed by God's word. Gender roles are not arbitrary.

Onward . . .

1 Timothy 2:12-14

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

What does Paul mean here? I guess we ought to look at Genesis 2.

Genesis 2:15-17, 21-22

15 The Lord God took the man kand put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying,

[Openly Curious]

'OopsMartin'

And if you have a viewpoint of the fall, especially 3:16, I'm sure they might like to hear it. that is where I'm going next. It doesn't matter if we don't agree exactly, that just makes it interesting. I'm of the view that the only things cursed were the serpent and the ground, while the rest is an expansion of that and their death judgement for eating of the tree, and will be expanding on that in detail. I'll be using some of Dr. Joy Elasky Flemings and Rev. Bruce E. Fleming's work on that.

There you have it folks OopsMartin's view that he holds goes in direct contradiction to what the Holy Bible says so plainly and forthrightly. I guess his "assumptions" is higher than the knowledge God gave us of the actual account that took place. I guess also the pain in childbirth and working by the sweat of the brow and woman's desire would be toward thier husbands and men ruling over and all them things which was part of the curse is just an expansion from the original curse on the serpent and the ground and of course death came only cause they ate of the tree.

Well you have to take such views to further the feminist agenda which you are propagating here which I already mentioned you would be doing and looky looky here you go. Why don't you stick to what God wrote in the bible and simply believe that instead of looking to other men and thier works that you have chosen only to further you cause. This is so outrageously against scriptures it is really sad. How far are you going to go with this I wonder.

OC

[Openly Curious]

'Neopatriarch'

No you're not. You're creating a straw-man. This entire thread is a sham.

First off you made great points and comments in your post This is so true what you have said it isn't even funny.

But really Oops, you should've began a separate post if you wanted to discuss the order of creation. This post was supposed to be on kephale.

I agree with this 100% and that is what makes this thread a sham because it is anything but on kephale. No where in all of the pages of the entire thread has OopsMartin shared with us what his true view is of what he wrote in the original OP still scratching my head on that one I guess he is still leading us on.

Again great post Neopatrearch.

OC