SM

NN, thanks for a response.
First you write (239): “let me state clearly that the origination of hierarchy from the basis of what I have called “eros” is a hypothesis on my part.”

Now we get to the bottom of that issue. In your article which you quote in your comments on this thread you are making a claim based on what you say is “direct”, “clear”, and “evident” in Eph 5:22 without identifying the words or phrases that either explicity state this or from which you infer this. Thanks for owning your hypothesis.

BUT, just when I thought I could “put to bed” this issue of “eros” being the basis of patriarchal hierarchy in marriage you continue:

(239) “[Eros] fits by far the best with all available evidence provided by Scripture that I have seen…”

Ok, I thought it was a hypothesis. Once again, would you be so helpful as to provide the scripture that you claim establishes “eros” as the basis for patriarchal hierarchy in marriage, other than Eph 5:22 which you cover already in your article under discussion and up to this point have yet to use effectively to support this claim.

NN continues: “…- but I cannot logically prove it in the same way (as a scientist trained in formal logic I mean something very specific when I say “prove”).”

I haven’t been asking you to “prove” the basis of your thesis. I have been simply asking you to support your claim that as we turn to Eph 5:22 we can see “clearly”, “directly” and “evidently” that “eros” between to “inequivalent” persons constitutes “a natural and God-made asymmetry”.

NN, you have had many opportunities to post in comments here and on your journal “all available evidence provided by Scripture that [you] have seen” and have not stepped up, yet?

I would be eager and diligent to read “all available evidence provided by Scripture”.

Patiently,