NOGO

Most of my explanations are not based on my interpretation. For example the bread from heaven discussion - my answer was based on Jesus' explanation to the disciples.

For some other answers you are partly correct. You see in my interpretation I make a distinction between Jesus and the Word while you assume that they are one and the same. Now the issue is not whether I am right or wrong. The issue is whether you can prove that they are the same. Then and only then can you view some of the text in that light.

So when you point to a verse assuming that the subject is Jesus I answer you that the subject may be the Word.

The bread from heaven is a good example. Jesus starts by saying that HE is the bread from heaven and that you must eat his flesh and drink his blood to get eternal life. So you assume that Jesus is talking about himself right?

But when he explains this to his disciples Jesus make it very clear that the bread of life which comes from above is the WORD OF GOD.

I assume here, David, that Jesus is giving the TRUTH when he speaks to his disciples. I hope that you agree on this.

David, you must stop and think for a minute. Why does Jesus say that he is the bread when in fact he means that it is the words that he speaks, the words that come from God?

Is he trying to confuse everybody or what?

There are many examples of this. Jesus speaks a different language when he speaks to the public in general. So if I apply the same distinction to everything that he says in public I am not being evasive not I am interpreting his words according to my way of thinking. I am merely reading IN CONTEXT.

NOGO

DavidH,

To continue with my thought on the previous post let me give you a synopsis.

If Jesus said "A" twenty times in GJohn then in one case he turns to his disciples and says <hey fellows, when I said "A" I really mean "B">
then, David,
showing me another instance of "A" will make no difference to the arguement. You must explain the instance where Jesus explained that "A" really meant "B".

Actually there are more than one instance where Jesus defuses his statements. But even one is sufficient to justify doubt. Showing us another instance where people listening to Jesus are outraged at his words because he makes himself equal to God simply points to another instance of "A".

I believe that Jesus is fairly consistent. In the example of the bread from Heaven he says

John 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

But to the crowd he said
John 6:48 I am the bread of life.

So the crowd in the synagogue he talks about HIMSELF and to his disciples he talks about the WORDS.

Now look at this ...

KJV John 14:10
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

NIV adds the word just as in "not just my own".
I quote KJV because it was translated in 1610 and back then nobody questioned Jesus' divinity.

So Jesus says that the WORDS are not his but God's.

Notice the consistency with the bread from heaven episode.

Note also in 14:10 "the Father that dwelleth in me". Jesus is possessed with the Spirit of God. This ties in with the "Word became flesh".

You know, David, you call the Bible the "Word of God" however noone confuses the "Word of God" with the book itself, that is, the paper and ink.

So as per 14:10 the Word of God dwells within Jesus who is a man. That is why Jesus says (14:10) that the words are not his but are God's who dwells in him.

One last point

Mark 1:10-12
Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him; and a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased." Immediately the Spirit impelled Him to go out into the wilderness.

We have all been thought that the words from Heaven "You are My beloved Son ..." are referring to Jesus. They are referring to the Spirit of God which descends into Jesus and which immediately leads him into the wilderness. Compare with John 14:10 which says that God dwells in Jesus and John 6:63 which says "the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

davidH

Again I am sorry for not getting back sooner.

Sojourner,

"Why do you call me good?"

You wrote concerning this:

How could a question be a lie?
Sojourner, I fail to see your logic - there is no lie at all. You would be unable in a court to show this to be a lie - it is a question.

You ignored a remark I made;

Why didn't he say this? Because this is exactly what you are making out that he did mean. So why didn't he just say it?
Is it so hard for a man to admit that he wasn't God? I would have said, "Don't call me good - noone is good except God alone!"

Sojourner - there is no lying from Jesus here. Surely you can see that? He neither confirms nor denies anything - therefore how can he have lied.

Lie = a statement that is untrue.
The only statement Jesus makes here is that noone is good except God alone.

So if Jesus was God then what he says doesn't contradict it or deny it.

Therefore if he neither denies that he is God (ie. by saying that he can't be called "good") nor confirms that he is God (by saying that he can be called good) then the question remaining is why did Jesus bring it up in the first place?

The only explanation is that he wanted to get people thinking.

Sojourner I am sure that you can see this - there is no lie whether direct or indirect - for only one statement is made and that is true.

From what I have said above I think you will understand that there can be no lie.
But you are right in the sense that Jesus never says that he is God - or that he isn't God.
Since Jesus initiated the response it raises (for those that don't believe Jesus was God) uncomfortable issues.

For as far as logic goes why didn't Jesus say "Don't call me good.." that way he is saying that he isn't God.

But he starts the response but neither says he isn't God or that he is God. Now if Jesus was just a man why in the world did he do this? He would have said "Don't call me good.."

But it fits in perfectly if Jesus is God and he doesn't yet want to reveal himself to the people.

Why you may ask:

1. The fact that he neither confirms nor denies anything. To confirm it he can't do just yet. To deny it would be lying since he was God.

2. The fact that Jesus of his own wish initiated this response - he wanted to get people thinking.

3. A man would have denied being God outright! The fact that Jesus doesn't raises uncomfortable issues if Jesus was truly only a man.


Jesus is drawing attention to the fact that there is something special about him but not revealing himself outright.

It draws attention to him - yes, and that was what I said before - it was to get people to start thinking.
It won't have drawn as much attention as if he had said "I am God!" etc. As Jesus said, "His time had not yet come."

So this is in perfect harmony with scripture.

And yet did Jesus ever go and offer sacrifices at the temple or anywhere for that matter?
If Jesus was a man wouldn't he have been actively involved in sacrificing according to the OT?

Yet if Jesus was God he would have no need for sacrifice - correct? -cause he would have no sin in him.

Sojourner,

A lot of what Nogo has brought up I have been able to explain - all in accordance with the Trinity. I'm going to go back through a lot of them and elaborate since that is what needs to be done.

Don't assume there are verses in the NT that don't support a Trinity - there aren't any that I can see.
Nogo has tried to bring a few up - like the one above "noone is good.."
I have shown that Jesus didn't lie and it is in accordance with Jesus being God.

This being so Sojourner, I would ask you or Nogo to explain this to me.

Jesus is said to have no sin in him.

Now lets examine these verses.

The Bible is clear that all men have sinned.

Now is this a plain contradiction? Only if Jesus was a man like you say he was - is this a contradiction.
The Bible clearly states that Jesus had no sin in him - he died because he was sinless.

It creates problems doesn't it? If all have sinned and Jesus was a man only - then he would have sinned too - how then could he die being sinless?

However if Jesus = God like I have shown then no longer is there a contradiction.
Jesus is sinless because he is God and in God there is no sin.
That is how both can be written - being sinless is attributed only to Jesus and God. This the NT states that all men descended from Adam have sinned this includes everyone. - Apart from Jesus since he was God and can't sin.

Sojourner and Nogo, there is no other way it can be explained. (You have other verses and I will explain them - the ones we have discussed and show how it fits in).

On these verses you have a choice - you can say Jesus was an ordinary man and so should have sin, therefore scripture is contradictory and can't be the Truth.
Or you can say, ok , these verses do seem to imply that there was something different about Jesus - either he is God and therefore the Bible is correct in saying all men have sinned and also correct in saying that Jesus never sinned.

And you can go on to examine other scripture in this light and see if it can fit and not contradict again.


When I posted up this verse:

Nogo tried to say that John was saying what the Jews thought Jesus was meaning.

However Nogo you don't support this statement. If John were saying what you claim he means he would have said, "The Jews tried to kill him because he was breaking the Sabbath....making himself equal with God in their eyes."

But John says nothing of the sort. If John was saying himself that Jesus was making himself out to be God, what would he have said in this case?

You will find that he would have said exactly what he says in the above verses.
But he was calling God his own Father - making himself equal with God.

John is saying Jesus was referring to himself being equal to God.

Again this fits in with the sinless Jesus - supports the fact that Jesus = God.

davidH

Nogo - in this post I am going to go some of your previous answers to my questions.

page 10.

(Bold are my highlights)

Ok Nogo, Lets examine your answer to Hebrews 1 v 8.

You say that the Son doesn't = Jesus.
But that the Son = the Word of God = Spirit of God = God.

(lol you got your own trinity going here )

Alright.

1. Son doesn't = Jesus.

Lets examine scripture first of all - Sojouner keep me right here ok?.

If what you say is true, then there should be no references that refer to Jesus specifically being the Son.

Ok I'll leave it there for the moment.

Lets take the last verse there from John 5 v 19.

You say that the Son = Word of God and hence = God.
This last verse especially contradicts that, there is a very very clear distinction between the Son and the Father.

Nogo, you know that the Father refers to God.

Therefore how can the Son (God) not do anything by himself if he is exactly the same as the Father like you say?

A massive contradiction here. Unless of course Jesus is the Son (as all the gospels call him) and is separate from the Father God.

You yourself say that the Son = God But all the Bible verses refer to Jesus called the Son. Therefore Jesus = Son = God.
Since Jesus is distinguished from the Father God and yet must still be God - we have the 2 members of the Trinity.


Then about the Word of God. You say that the "Word of God" = God"Word of God" = God

but you also say that the Word doesn't = Jesus.

Lets examine your statement that the Word = God.

Why is the Word described as HE being with God in the beginning?

How do you explain the very clear distinction between the "Word" and God? The fact that "He" was with God in the beginning doesn't suggest teachings or laws of God, but someone that was with God in the beginning. - Right?

If it was referring to the Word of God /teachings of God, then it would have been written "THEY"
Would it not?

Let me put the word "God" in place of the "WORD".

In the begining was God and God was with God and God was God. HE was with God in the beginning.

Nogo, this makes no sense. The word "HE" doesn't fit in either.

Now carrying on in the same passage we see that the "WORD" is shown to be Jesus.
(NB This is why Wordsymth tried to say that the Word was God's commands etc)

Now lets see if Jesus fits in with the first statement.

In the begining was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God. HE was with God in the beginning.

It makes perfect sense. But that is not enough to prove anything, there must be other scripture that shows Jesus to have been with God in the beginning.
Is there? Answer is Yes there is.

Jesus is praying this. He is saying that he was with God before the world began, which corresponds with John 1v1.


The Son (which you obviously understand to be Jesus) is said to be;
1. "the radiance of God's glory."

2. the exact representation of his (God's) being.

There we have Jesus = God .

Here is something interesting that Wordsymth wrote - maybe you would care to explain it to me.


Again this is in Hebrews 1 v 3.

The "specific distinction" between the Son and God. And yet you say that Son is God - not referring to Jesus.
Even Wordsymth saw the futility of arguing this because of the obvious distinction. Therefore the Son talked about is Jesus - the same Son that is talked about in Hebrews 1 v 8, where the Son is called God by God.

Again the other verses about Jesus' words not being his - the Father God is who they come from, this again is in support of the distinction between the Father and the Son.

Jesus when he said he was from heaven you said he was referring to the "Word" but he was referring to himself. He wasn't God according to you, nor was he referring to the Spirit he was referring to himself.
This makes sense in the light of everything we have just discussed since if Jesus was God the Son then he would have been in heaven - and he would have had to come to the earth. - Makes perfect sense.

Do you see the point that I am trying to make here Nogo?
I think Sojourner you too will see what I am getting at - you are both smart and I think that you will recognise that the NT does support a Trinity fully and causes no contradictions etc.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: davidH ]</p>

Sojourner553

David,
Let us say there was a king who wanted to disguise himself among his people.

Let’s suppose the king is wealthy and most of his subjects are very poor.

Suppose the disguised king was asked if he had any money, and he replies “Why do you ask if I have any money?” “Only the king has a lot of money?”

Technically, the king has not lied.


But! the king HAS been deceitful (a form of indirect lying)

The same applies to Jesus in the “Why call me good” example.

When the Jewish man said, “Good master”, he never implied Jesus was PERFECT, just that the man before him (Jesus) had “some” good in him. Jesus is the one who twists this into a statement that only God is perfect (and therefore by implication he is not perfect.)

*Now, I would argue, this scene only becomes a deceitful statement if Jesus really believed he were God!!!


To answer what I think is really going on here?


This scene is only presented in Mark (ie Luke and Matthew change the lines so they no longer appear deceitful). That is, even though scholars believe Matthew and Luke relied on Mark as a source, they modify this scene so that Jesus does not appear deceitful.

The analyses I have read on this and many, many other verses is that the original Jesus was a good Jew who aspired to be the messiah of Jewish tradition – a man who was given supernatural powers upon baptism to lead the Jews to freedom against the hated Romans.

Later Greeks took hold of these stories, and interpreted Jesus’ life through the framework they were familiar from their local pagan religions – ie Zeus (or other Greek gods) impregnating virgins, saviors of the world, a heaven in the sky, resurrection after 3 days,

The reason why these verses in Mark were not “fixed” by later Christians –unlike those verses in Matthew, Luke and John was that Mark was an unpopular gospel in the earlier Christian years, and therefore there was not the demand to “correct” theological errors by later hands.

Note: for a discussion on the evidence that the Bible has been corrected by later hands:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NEWTEST2.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NEWTEST2.TXT</a>



Why would an ordinary man say this, you ask?

An ordinary man would say "Why do you call me good, for only God is good", if he were trying to portray himself as "humble" before God. This is very much in line with Jewish tradition.


[i] If a "true" God were asked this question, he would answer

** "Thank you"; if he were coy. {for answering the question this way neither implies he is or is not perfect. Therefore no deceit is involved.}

or,

** "You do realize I am perfect, since I am a God," if he were not coy

That is a deceitful answer is not required regardless of whether Jesus were a man or "God".



[/b] Now to point out one contradiction to you: [/b]

According to 1 Peter 2 v 22, Jesus was not supposed to be deceitful,
“He commited no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth.”

But as I have demonstrated above, Jesus was deceitful by his reply--ie the reply reported by Mark.

So there you have one contradiction.

[i]
DavidH.

Do you accept all other claims of divinity in the OTHER religions merely by their holy texts claims of miraculous origins? These include claims of trinities, if this is important for some reason.

Or are you more skeptical of their claims, desiring them to be substantiated first…

Also, why focus ONLY on text describing the Trinity. I can show you more "consistent" texts in other pagan religions (because there was no original Jewish leader acting through earlier Jewish traditions that had a conflict in dogma with Greek relgigious tradition).

Since, this is getting long, I will point out in the next post, verses where Jesus is portrayed as relatively weak.


Sojourner


[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

In Luke, Matthew, and John Jesus is usually (with a few exceptions) presented as an all powerful being.

But in Mark, we see snippets where Jesus is not all-powerful, indeed is not much distinguishable from the local Jewish wonder workers.

Of course I have examples:

(1) In Mark 5:1-13, Jesus sent the devils from two possessed men into a herd of swine, who then run violently off a cliff to their deaths.

Belief in demons being the cause of madness is big in the NT.
Mark describes four episodes of demonic possession. The Gerasene demoniac who ran around naked and had to be kept on a chain
(Mark 5:1-13, Matthew 7:28-31 Luke 8:26-32); the epileptic and possible
deaf-mute (Mark 9:15-27, Matthew 17:14-8, Luke 9:38-42), the man exorcised in the synagogue of Capernaum (Mark 1:23-6; Luke 4:33-5), and a Tyrian woman who lay peacefully on her bed after being free from the torment of her demon.(Mark 7:24-30; Matthew 15:21-8). John 10:20 refers to a man who "has a demon and he is mad". In two additional instances recorded in Matthew (see Matthew 9:32-4 and 22-4), possession is described as the cause of dumbness, or the cause of dumbness/blindness.

Indeed in Galilee, one of Jesus' main occupation was said to be from casting out demons:

*"They brought to him all who were ill or possessed by devils...He
healed many who suffered from various diseases, and drove out many
devils." (Mark 1:32-4; Matthew 8:16, Luke 4:40-1)

*"So all through Galilee he went...casting out the devils."
(Mark 1:39, Matthew 4:23)

Historically, these scenes have had the harmful effect of promoting beliefs in demonology and superstition in general. If ALL these cases just happened to be TRUE spiritual possessions-- the gospels are still COMPLETELY SILENT on the fact that at least SOME displays of bizarre behavior (foaming of the mouth, etc) have purely PHYSICAL causes that could be treated by FUTURE doctors.

***This seems hardly consistent with a perfect document from an all-powerful being – especially when these beliefs are IDENTIFCAL with those of the gospel writers SUPERSTITIOUS Jewish and pagan neighbors.***


Regarding the fate of the swine in the episode of Garasenes, scholars over the centuries have been perplexed as to why Jesus would also condemn the pigs to jump off the cliff in effecting the man's cure. The implication is that Jesus possibly was not powerful enough to effect an all out cure. That is, the gospel of Mark portrays Jesus' powers more in line with those of the Old Testament prophets--Where there were either powerful words or other side antics to effect the miracle. For example:

--Elijah breathed three times on the son of the widow Narepta before
calling out "O Lord, my God, Let, I pray thee, the soul of this return to him."

-- Elisha asks to pray in privacy with the dead son of the Shunnamite woman. Then, after praying, he "bowed himself on the child seven time; and the child opened his eyes." (II Kings 3:25 of the Septuagint)


Other Examples:

(2) Mark likewise depicts a Jesus who uses the aid of a magic word or a "spat". When Jesus is asked to heal a deaf mute:

"He took the man aside, away from the crowd, put his fingers into his ears, spat, and touched his tongue. Then, looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him, 'Ephphatha', which means, 'Be opened.' With that his ears were opened, and at the same time the impediment was removed and he spoke plainly." (Mark 7:33-35)

According to the Roman historian Tacitus, the Emperor Vespasian (following the Jewish-Roman war of 66-70 C.E.) healed a blind man by means of his spit. Vespasian was in Alexandria, when a blind man approached him to spit on his cheeks and eyes. After some hesitation, Vespasian did so, and the man declared he could see light again. (Tacitus, HISTORIES, 4.81; also related in Dio Cassius, ROMAN HISTORY 65.8) and Suetonius, VESPASIAN 7.)

(3) According to Mark, Jesus powers were also not strong enough to completely cure a blind man on the first try:

"He spat on his eyes, and laid his hands upon him, and asked whether
he could see any thing. the blind man's sight began to come back, and he said, "I see men; they look like trees, but they are walking about."

Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; he looked hard, and now he was cured so that he saw everything clearly." (Mark 8:23-25)

(Note: Both Matthew and Luke correct this 'weakness' throughout their gospels, and show Jesus' powers as taking effect instantly!)

(4) Story of the Fig Tree

Here is the fig tree scene per Mark:

-- "Noticing a fig tree in leaf, [Jesus] went to see if he could find anything on it. But when he came there he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season for figs. He said to the tree, "May no one ever again eat fruit from you! ...Early next morning as they passed
by, they saw that the fig tree had withered from the roots up."
(Mark 11:13-14,20)

Mark presents a weak Jesus who does NOT KNOW beforehand that the fig
tree was bare (not to mention it wasn't the season for it). Because he
has wasted his time in looking for figs he angrily curses it. The curse
itself does not take effect immediately, but the tree is completely withered by the next morning.



According to Matthew's version:

-- "Seeing a fig tree at the roadside he went up to it but found nothing on it but leaves. He said to the tree, 'You shall never bear fruit any more!', and the tree withered away AT ONCE." (Matthew 21:19-20, emphasis mine)

Again, presumably, Jesus' supernatural knowledge should have told him that the fig tree was already bare (unless his human form restricted his powers). Matthew softens the implications of this by portraying the fig tree as rowing "at the roadside" so that Jesus did not have to waste too much effort in looking for figs. Once Matthew's powerful Jesus curses the tree, his powers took effect immediately--and the tree withers AT ONCE!

Interesting enough, Luke's version of the curse of the fig tree is not a story about Jesus at all, but is instead a parable told by Jesus:

-- "A certain man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it, but found none. So he said to the vinedresser, 'Look here! For the last three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down. Why should it go on using up the soil?'" (Luke 13:6-7)

Possibly Luke had the original version of the story--ie a parable, and in the oral retelling of the story, it evolved into a story about a miracle by Jesus himself (as both Mark and Matthew wished to use it to symbolize Jesus' anger upon his arrival at the Second Coming).

(5) A Prophet Not Held In Honor In His Own Home Town

Mark presents a weaker Jesus in describing Jesus' visit to his
home town of Nazareth. Here the implication is given that possibly
Jesus "could work no miracle" (except "on a few sick people)" unless
the people believed. The gospel Mark quotes Jesus as saying,

"A prophet will always be held in honour except in his home
town, and among his kinsmen and family." He could work no miracle
there, except that he put his hands on a few sick people and
healed them, and he was taken aback by their want of faith."(Mark 6:4-6)

Again, Matthew replaced this weak depiction of Jesus by Mark
with a more powerful divine being whose cures take place instantaneously:

"He did not work many miracles there: such was their want of faith."
(Matthew 13:58)

That is Matthew shows that it wasn't that Jesus COULDN'T cure people in his home town--instead he CHOSE NOT to, because he was offended by their lack of faith.

(6) Jesus predicts the End of the World will come to an end during the lifetime of his contemporaries.

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/APOCALYP.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/APOCALYP.TXT</a>


Again David: I don’t think the ORIGINAL version of Mark has Jesus being a member of a Trinity. I think these are later additions by Greek Christians.

Taken from:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>


Section II, Chapter 5


Also recommended Section III, Chapter 3 for examples how later authors changed the New Testament.

Sojourner

Sojourner553

DavidH:

I was answering your points on Trinity texts indirectly -- but maybe not clear enough for you to get my point:

*Of course there are verses that claim Jesus was a Trinity.

But I find this no different that other religions that claim miraculous beings in THEIR holy texts...

To be consistent, should we not believe their claims too...

or should we attempt to substantiate these first? (I think I have asked this question a number of ways...)

Ever hear of Popper's falsification principle. He invoked it because ideologies such as communism, spiritualism ect were claiming to be "scientific". Popper suggested to be truly scientific one must first try to look for weaknesses in one's proposition -- That is one should seek out ANY evidence that would disprove one's belief (as opposed to ignoring this and only touting any evidence available that might prove it. To do the latter is IDEOLOGY--not science.)

You might ask, if I have applied this principle to myself? To which I answer, "of course". I grew up very religious and have switched after following this principle. I remember during this transition that I did have to choose between truth and what I "wanted" to believe...

Of course, I still have my fantasies - -example Disneyland. (Smile) The difference is I don't try to mix my fantasies with reality.


Sojourner

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

NOGO

I see your point and as I said I will answer you.
First, you must answer my points.
Otherwise we are going to run around in circles.

As I said before David, you cannot prove your point by putting mine down. Your view must stand on it's own. Do you understand this?

Sojourner553

Yes David,

You need to address your WEAKEST points --

Instead of ONLY what you perceive to be your STRONGEST points.

Otherwise this degrades into an ideological (as opposed to rational) discussion.

For your "strongest" points exist in ALL religions -- ie "claims" of divinity/miracles.

Sojourner

NOGO

Hi DavidH,

Once you are finished with the verses that I gave you earlier you can exaplin these.

Acts 17:31
because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a man
whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead."

NOTE "a man"


Romans 8:34
who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is
at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

"intercedes" for us. Jesus cannot intercede to himself.


1 Cor 3:23
and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.

"Christ belongs to God" in the same way that you belong to Christ.


1 Cor 11:3
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of
a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

God is the head of Christ in the same way that Christ is the head of every man and in the same way that man is the head of a woman.


1 Cor 15:27-28
For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put
in subjection," it is evident that he is excepted who put all things in subjection to him.
When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself also will be subjected to the One
who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all.

"When all things are subjected to him, THEN..."
This clearly indicates separate beings otherwise the subjugation would happen in one step not two.