^I'm really, really shocked to hear you say this.

Apart from the various scriptures I cited, about Jesus going up to where he was before, or "before Abraham was, I am." And everywhere in scripture it says that God "SENT" his Son. Parables are also similar in portrayal: the Son was sent. How could God have "sent his Son" if he didn't exist before he was sent to the world? There was a point at which the Son took corporeal form.

Now Jesus has another title: the Son of Man. THAT was referring to the physical incarnation which was promised in Genesis, sent to Earth to crush the devil's work. The "Son of Man" as the agent of the promise did begin at that point, while Jesus existed before that as the "Son of God".

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." And 1 John says that Satan was sinning from the beginning.

If what we call the "present" is a pen, drawing out linear time, then God views the finished portrait, seeing all events construct history that he had planned and orchestrated from the beginning. Telling is the fact that Christ does not know the date of the end times, but only the Father knows the date (and again, this also suggests that the angels didn't either). What I can see is that the Son experiences sequence, where the Father's perspective is higher.

People confused about the nature of sequence also have a hard time grasping the beginning. That's why atheists foolishly ask "who created God?" God, purely, is existence: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," and of course to Moses: "I Am."

As we can see, then, God encircles all sequence. He began it and will finish it. Nothing within, therefore of course, takes Him by surprise. The Hebrew name for God or Yahweh is similar. Since he encircles sequence, and IS the Beginning and the End,

I am confident portraying the Son as this: the linear time iteration/expression of God. Beneath and within the Father, and began as time began. The "Son" only had one parent, so to speak, and that Son is therefore a perfect image of his Father (like if somehow a child could be born of one parent).

(I do not consider extrabiblical terms like "Godhead" and "trinity")

Jesus was the Son of MAN when he was born and became fleshly, to crush the serpent's plans according to the prophecy in Genesis (notice also that somehow, Joseph's genealogy is given as well as Mary's). He was the Son of GOD since the very, very beginning.

At any rate, the head of Christ is God. Paul organized this introduction to fit perfectly the way he would organize the following writing, which describes how a man's head connects to Christ, but the woman's head connects to man (via sign of authority, which her head is "beneath"). And lastly, he says clearly and obviously, "but everything comes from God" (the head of Christ is God). In between he deals with all of what that entails, "for he is the image of God, but woman is the glory of man. Man was not created for woman, but woman for man." But everyone was created for God (this is my statement, of course, and it's an inversion of the others to show that that layer is topmost).

(To suggest that this reference was in any way "chronological" blows an enormous, extremely consequential hole through the Word)

When you consider the real meaning of Paul's instructions for why a man's head should be uncovered (and most people are complaining about the latter half for offending women's lib more than anything else, not paying attention to the former half of the practice because it doesn't offend other mainstream customs) and women's heads covered, the meaning that is very "New Testament," the thought is quite compelling.

The phrase "creates time" is misleading: remember God's name! He IS the full encirclement of time! Christ begins with it.

I'm sure you'd agree that God didn't create Himself. However, the Son was made along with "THE BEGINNING" (The father who is the beginning and the end knows not sequence and "beginning"). John 1:2 doesn't say he "created" the beginning, so you can see he could not have "created time," while the Father literally WAS the beginning, and the End, Himself; it says Jesus "was in the beginning." That statement is well-worth putting into its own verse (John 1:2).

Again we see, the Son is subject to sequence. But the Father is not.

Hence we see again how the Son is subject to the Father (The Beginning and the End).

I disagree. I think you are chasing the wind.

I agree that women should cover in church, but not for the reason you propose. Your reason fails to rise to the high level of honoring the Headship of Christ and debasing the glory of man that 1 Cor 11:1-16 actually sets forth, and substitutes a secondary (and much less God-honoring) reason in it's place.

 

 Well I have been a Christian for 37 years, I have met many many many Christians in many diifferent places, denominations  and churches, ministries and church organisations and have never known anyone, either man or women who thinks that women have to cover their heads.

"Their husbands spiritually give them covering?"  What doctrine is this? And on what Scripture is it based?