I also have another question for V:

What, in your view, was happening when Jesus was baptized, a dove came upon him (the Holy Spirit), and God the Father spoke from the sky saying, "this is my Son, whom I love . . ."

How do you explain that, I wonder?

And Jesus' prayers . . .  charades?

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead.[1] It should be noted that the concept of personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of "person" as used in the English language—it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity.":pp. 185-6. To the ancients, personhood "was in some sense individual, but always in community as well.":p.186 The doctrine states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases, but one being. Each of the persons is understood as having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures. Since the beginning of the third century the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as "the one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."Trinitarianism, belief in the Trinity, is a mark of Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and all the mainstream traditions arising from the Protestant Reformation, such as Anglicanism, Methodism, Lutheranism and Presbyterianism. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church describes the Trinity as "the central dogma of Christian theology"



Economic and ontological Trinity

Economic Trinity: This refers to the acts of the triune God with respect to the creation, history, salvation, the formation of the Church, the daily lives of believers, etc. and describes how the Trinity operates within history in terms of the roles or functions performed by each of the Persons of the Trinity—God's relationship with creation.

Ontological (or essential or immanent) Trinity: This speaks of the interior life of the Trinity[John 1:1–2]—the reciprocal relationships of Father, Son and Spirit to each other without reference to God's relationship with creation.

Or more simply—the ontological Trinity (who God is) and the economic Trinity (what God does). Most Christians believe the economic reflects and reveals the ontological. Catholic theologian Karl Rahner went so far as to say "The 'economic' Trinity is the 'immanent' Trinity, and vice versa."[79]

The ancient Nicene theologians argued that everything the Trinity does is done by Father, Son, and Spirit working together with one will. The three persons of the Trinity always work inseparably, for their work is always the work of the one God. Because of this unity of will, the Trinity cannot involve the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Eternal subordination can only exist if the Son's will is at least conceivably different from the Father's. But Nicene orthodoxy says it is not. The Son's will cannot be different from the Father's because it is the Father's. They have but one will as they have but one being. Otherwise they would not be one God. If there were relations of command and obedience between the Father and the Son, there would be no Trinity at all but rather three gods.[80]

In explaining why the Bible speaks of the Son as being subordinate to the Father, the great theologian Athanasius argued that scripture gives a "double account" of the son of God—one of his temporal and voluntary subordination in the incarnation, and the other of his eternal divine status.[81] For Athanasius, the Son is eternally one in being with the Father, temporally and voluntarily subordinate in his incarnate ministry. Such human traits, he argued, were not to be read back into the eternal Trinity.

Like Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers also insisted there was no economic inequality present within the Trinity. As Basil wrote: "We perceive the operation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one and the same, in no respect showing differences or variation; from this identity of operation we necessarily infer the unity of nature."[82]

Augustine also rejected the idea of an economic hierarchy within the Trinity. He claimed that the three persons of the Trinity "share the inseparable equality one substance present in divine unity".[83] Because the three persons are one in their inner life, this means that for Augustine their works in the world are one. For this reason, it is an impossibility for Augustine to speak of the Father commanding and the Son obeying as if there could be a conflict of wills within the eternal Trinity.

John Calvin also spoke at length about the doctrine of the Trinity. Like Athanasius and Augustine before him, he concluded that Philippians 2:4-11 prescribed how scripture was to be read correctly. For him the Son's obedience is limited to the incarnation and is indicative of his true humanity assumed for human salvation.[84]

Much of this work is summed up in the Athanasian Creed. This creed stresses the unity of the Trinity and the equality of the persons. It ascribes equal divinity, majesty, and authority to all three persons. All three are said to be "almighty" and "Lord" (no subordination in authority; "none is before or after another" (no hierarchical ordering); and "none is greater, or less than another" (no subordination in being or nature). Thus, since the divine persons of the Trinity act with one will, there is no possibility of hierarchy-inequality in the Trinity.

Since the 1980s, some evangelical theologians have come to the conclusion that the members of the Trinity may be economically unequal while remaining ontologically equal. This theory was put forward by George W. Knight III in his 1977 book The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women, states that the Son of God is eternally subordinated in authority to God the Father. This conclusion was used as a means of supporting the main thesis of his book: that women are permanently subordinated in authority to their husbands in the home and to male leaders in the church, despite being ontologically equal. Subscribers to this theory insist that the Father has the role of giving commands and the Son has the role of obeying them.

   

Its not just me it is 99% of Christians, or 100% of those that I have known in my life. I have no idea why it is of such enormous importance to a few people to warrant such an enormous thread. Goodness Jesus could come soon and we are  telling people that they have to wear hats. No wonder people dont want to come to church.We do need some common sense really..

I actually believe that my husband is the head of the family, but I dont believe that God is asking me to cover my head, and my husband doesn't either.Neither he nor I have ever felt convicted of this and he has been a christian for 46 years and I have been one for 38 or so years, so I really think that if I were disobeying God He would havd told me by now..
If it really were that important to God He would have told the millions of Christians who dont cover their heads to do so.
I have never actually met a single man or women who feels that God wants us to do this in all the years that I have been a  christisn.
I think God is more concerned with how many people are going to hell for eternity.

Phoebe, something I would be interested in reading would be your full exposition of what Paul meant in 1 cor 11:1-16. I went back through this whole thread and could not find anything like that, just bits and pieces here and there. Do it like you would explain it to someone unfamiliar with the topic, and explain the various verses, so that we can see what Paul meant by them.

What did Paul say, and why did he say it?

Right now things are mostly a lot of going back and forth about comparatively abstract details, so why not lay the big picture out for us, along with such details as would make the whole thing comprehensible to a new believer. Then maybe whatever we discuss from then on would be more worthwhile.

Thanks

Mr. Got - That would be throwing good seed on rock-hard ground, would it not?

In addition, that takes hours of work, hours that I don't have this week.  Are you worthy of my time....?  I am in the middle of trying to replace our vehicle that met it's death when meeting full-on with a young black angus bull (who also met his death) the other night so that my mutually submissive husband and I can leave tomorrow for a brief, but long-planned vacation.  I will be rockin' out with Three Dog Night ( ), a gift from my kids, and enjoying the sunshine (finally!), tranquility, and beauty of the Ozark lakes.  If I feel so inclined, I will take some of my reference materials with me and exegete the passage.  If not, well, I will be quite happy to forget about "headcoverings" for a few days.

ITM, here is a link to an article that provides a good basis for my understanding of kephale:

http://bilezikian.com/gbilezikian/publications/maleheadship.html

I will leave you with this beginning:

11:2 says that "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."  (KJV all right with you?)

First, I notice that the "remember" is of Paul, not Christ.  But a gentle way of beginning a correction.  Very smart of Paul. He will correct that "remember" as he goes.

Second, the word translated in the KJV as 'ordinances' = paradosis, "traditions"

Those "traditions" were Jewish traditions.  Not even necessarily Old Law, as one of the things Saul was known for was being a Jews Jews, well-known for stretching Moses' Law to suit themselves as did the old rabbis.  As Paul lived in his new-found Christian faith, do you think he let go of that all at once, or do you think it was a maturing process where he began to release these old traditions and old laws?  Or are you of the belief that we are to hold fast to the Old Law and its traditions?


"Tradition" is a big hurdle for contemporary mandated headcovering for women to overcome.