Cheryl Schatz

NN,
You said:

I think perhaps you mistook the meaning of my argument. It was simply in response to the repeated statements to the effect that:

Since the word “eros” is not in the Bible, the concept is not Biblical.

I didn’t hear the argument being made that the concept is not Biblical. The understanding that I clearly got from the arguments that others were making is that you cannot just add the concept of “eros” into a passage without justification. Although it was said that the word is not in the Bible, I didn’t hear anyone claim that the sense of a sexual unity is not in the Scriptures. The challenge for you was to prove that eros is meant in Ephesians 5.

It would be the same thing with the Trinity. When Jesus said that he was thirsty while he was on the cross, we cannot take that statement and say that the Trinity was saying that they were thirsty even though the concept of the Trinity is true and it is found in the Scriptures. What is true is not necessarily true when placed in a text that has nothing to do with that particular truth. I think this is what was argued and so your argument that the Trinity is not found in the Scriptures without even stating that the proof of the Trinity is found in the Scriptures was a most unfortunate argument.