SM

NN (270),

“In my original post on “eros,”….I note that this concept is underpinned by a previous post giving explicit proof for hierarchy… ”

The only note to a previous post in the article under discussion here is how “wives be subject” is defined and is as follows: “However, as discussed previously, the instruction here given is the same as that given to servants toward their masters and citizens toward the ruling authorities – it is quite clear that this instruction does imply submission to authority.”

In the article under discussion “Agape & Eros”, your thesis is that in
Eph 5:22, “it becomes apparent that there is another sort of love operative here – “eros”….The presence of this type of love is distinctive of the marriage relationship….And if we recognize that this sort of love is between two inequivalent people *** THEN *** the hierarchical nature of the marital relationship instructed by Paul becomes evident…. And we see that in the marital relationship – when there is “Eros” that this leads to the specific instruction of the wife to submit to the husband AND the husband to take responsibility over this to exercise a sacrificial love to care for his wife.” (emphasis added)

It is clear in context and with the conclusions you draw that your “eros” thesis was not supported by any claims or conclusions drawn from another article.

NN: “the proof for hierarchy came first; though you seem to have latched onto them in reverse order.”

I’m simply reading what you wrote.

NN: “That I am telling you that any discussion of hierarchy based on “eros” must first presuppose that hierarchy exists is something I have already said and should not be strange to you.”

I have not read you actually address the questions concerning your “eros” thesis until 239 after multiple requests by me and another commenter. Even then you backed off from your claim stating it was your hypothesis. However, in the next sentence (239) you claim “all the available evidence provided by scripture [you] have read” best fits your hypothesis, but you do not provide this evidence after multiple requests.

NN: “But to clarify the nature of the other statement – we have a quote in physics:
“But the real glory of [a conceptual model] is not that we can find the answer, but that we can find a way of thinking such that the answer is self-evident.””

Again, this is a theological discussion, however it sounds like your physics quote is what theologians call reading into the text–reading the text with presuppositions.

NN: “The concept of “eros” as explaining marital hierarchy is a model; but we must have a common understanding of the data before a model can possibly make any sense.”

A model of WHAT!?
What DATA informs the MODEL!?
It is clear that the “simplicty of the gospel” has been forsaken.

In order for a meaningful discussion to ensue, NN, you must explicate, substantiate, or retract your thesis in the article under discussion.

NN, I’ve given you many chances to sell your claim.

Barely patient,