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

[inhistime]

(edited by mod to remove links)

OopsMartin,

Okay here I am again and ready to give some input. First of all I must comment on the

[methinkshe]

(edited by mod to remove links)

........... that in each pair the

[EricH]

Emily, I am so very aware of how to study and research Scripture. I

[inhistime]

(edited by mod to remove links)

........... that in each pair the

[apothanein kerdos]

My suggestion is this:

You and I can do a soapbox on the meaning of kephale in Ephesians 5. I don't see how we can discuss the meaning without applying it to a particular Scripture because it means different things in different settings. I take it that you would be arguing for the meaning of "authority over". I will be arguing for the meaning of "head of" used in a metaphor.

Neither of us will be allowed to use arguments from Genesis in the creation accounts or the fall because that will take us back to where we are now. If you want to discuss that, I'm all geared up to continue on.

I looked over the soapbox folders and can relate to George's guidelines in the deity of Jesus thread.

How does that sound. It's simple. It will get a tad bit complicated but not much. We will likely come to a stand still, but it will be interesting.

However, I will require your cooperation on certain things. No name calling. No derogatory statements about one another. No accusations of twisting Scripture or denying Scripture inerrancy. (I usually block off people who do that to me, it is a waste of good mental work). Stick to the research, facts, Scripture and interpretations. And no reposting the same thing over and over for any reason.

There is to be respecful discourse or none at all.

Can you agree to that?

And there will be a time factor for me. There may be long periods when I cannot post. And research will take some time also.

If you can agree to the following structure, then I will gladly enter into the debate:

AK 1 ----> construct position on topic (max 8,000 words)

OM 1 ---->constructs his position, along with opposition (max 8,000)

AK 2 -----> responds and strengthens Eg 1's position (max 8,000)

OM 2 ----> covers new ground that was not dealt with (max 9,000)

AK 1 -----> offers a rebuttal (max 1,000 words)

OM 2 -----> rebuttal (max 1,000 words)

AK 2 ------> rebuttal (max 1,000 words)

During the rebuttals, no new evidence or quotation can be offered. There is a maximum limit on the words so we aren't making multiple posts, there is a limit to the debate so it does not go on forever, and it is structured in such a way so we know a proper order of response.

[EricH]

Hi Ruth,

Actually what you have said is a good example of how we have read the patriarchal view into the scriptures. Because we have thought that God speaks only through the man, we have not believed Eve when she gave her testimony about what God said to her. God

[methinkshe]

(edited by mod to remove links)

........... that in each pair the

[Emily~Anne]

Apparently Eve must have been capable of sin before she ate the forbidden fruit. Otherwise she never would have made it that far as to even decide to disobey God.

And I totally agree with Ruth that power and authority are NOT synonymous. I have the power to do alot of things, but not the authority. When you try to make them see synonomous, you make God's design of authority seem perverted. Putting a negative view on authority basically.

Openly Curious, Apothenian Kerdos, Methinksshe, Neopartriarch, and others who believe in the proper meaning of headship: Please give me your thoughts on this and help me learn.

In Ephesians 5 it says that the husband is head of the wife, and it says that the husband ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. The head/body part is what has my interest. And then the verse that says we are created to be a a help-meet to our husbands. My hubby is my head and he is to care for me as his own body essentially? And does that connect to being one flesh as it says in Ephesians 5:31?

Posting the scripture for reference:

Ephesians 5:22-33 (New International Version)

Wives and Husbands

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church

[OopsMartin]

My suggestion is this:

You and I can do a soapbox on the meaning of kephale in Ephesians 5. I don't see how we can discuss the meaning without applying it to a particular Scripture because it means different things in different settings. I take it that you would be arguing for the meaning of "authority over". I will be arguing for the meaning of "head of" used in a metaphor.

Neither of us will be allowed to use arguments from Genesis in the creation accounts or the fall because that will take us back to where we are now. If you want to discuss that, I'm all geared up to continue on.

I looked over the soapbox folders and can relate to George's guidelines in the deity of Jesus thread.

How does that sound. It's simple. It will get a tad bit complicated but not much. We will likely come to a stand still, but it will be interesting.

However, I will require your cooperation on certain things. No name calling. No derogatory statements about one another. No accusations of twisting Scripture or denying Scripture inerrancy. (I usually block off people who do that to me, it is a waste of good mental work). Stick to the research, facts, Scripture and interpretations. And no reposting the same thing over and over for any reason.

There is to be respecful discourse or none at all.

Can you agree to that?

And there will be a time factor for me. There may be long periods when I cannot post. And research will take some time also.

If you can agree to the following structure, then I will gladly enter into the debate:

AK 1 ----> construct position on topic (max 8,000 words)

OM 1 ---->constructs his position, along with opposition (max 8,000)

AK 2 -----> responds and strengthens Eg 1's position (max 8,000)

OM 2 ----> covers new ground that was not dealt with (max 9,000)

AK 1 -----> offers a rebuttal (max 1,000 words)

OM 2 -----> rebuttal (max 1,000 words)

AK 2 ------> rebuttal (max 1,000 words)

During the rebuttals, no new evidence or quotation can be offered. There is a maximum limit on the words so we aren't making multiple posts, there is a limit to the debate so it does not go on forever, and it is structured in such a way so we know a proper order of response.

No thank you. I am willing to accept George's layout. This is not a college exercise. I really want to discuss the issue.

[apothanein kerdos]

My suggestion is this:

You and I can do a soapbox on the meaning of kephale in Ephesians 5. I don't see how we can discuss the meaning without applying it to a particular Scripture because it means different things in different settings. I take it that you would be arguing for the meaning of "authority over". I will be arguing for the meaning of "head of" used in a metaphor.

Neither of us will be allowed to use arguments from Genesis in the creation accounts or the fall because that will take us back to where we are now. If you want to discuss that, I'm all geared up to continue on.

I looked over the soapbox folders and can relate to George's guidelines in the deity of Jesus thread.

How does that sound. It's simple. It will get a tad bit complicated but not much. We will likely come to a stand still, but it will be interesting.

However, I will require your cooperation on certain things. No name calling. No derogatory statements about one another. No accusations of twisting Scripture or denying Scripture inerrancy. (I usually block off people who do that to me, it is a waste of good mental work). Stick to the research, facts, Scripture and interpretations. And no reposting the same thing over and over for any reason.

There is to be respecful discourse or none at all.

Can you agree to that?

And there will be a time factor for me. There may be long periods when I cannot post. And research will take some time also.

If you can agree to the following structure, then I will gladly enter into the debate:

AK 1 ----> construct position on topic (max 8,000 words)

OM 1 ---->constructs his position, along with opposition (max 8,000)

AK 2 -----> responds and strengthens Eg 1's position (max 8,000)

OM 2 ----> covers new ground that was not dealt with (max 9,000)

AK 1 -----> offers a rebuttal (max 1,000 words)

OM 2 -----> rebuttal (max 1,000 words)

AK 2 ------> rebuttal (max 1,000 words)

During the rebuttals, no new evidence or quotation can be offered. There is a maximum limit on the words so we aren't making multiple posts, there is a limit to the debate so it does not go on forever, and it is structured in such a way so we know a proper order of response.

No thank you. I am willing to accept George's layout. This is not a college exercise. I really want to discuss the issue.

The Soapbox is a debate forum. If you can't agree to a debate format, then you're never going to get me in there. I'll abide by George's layout to a degree, but it is not mutually exclusive to what I have above. What is above limits the topic. This is not a "college exercise," that is how most professional debates are handled.

Besides, if you can't state your point 18,000 words, then you don't have a point.