SM

Tifanny, re 430

My comment at 426 was because based on your comments at 416, we do not share the same perspective of what NN was doing.

NN @ 361
“To SM (360)
Concerning most of your misconceptions I shall bite my tongue since you are apparently unwilling to work through a formal logic chain point by point.
Let me ask you only one question with regard to your conclusion:
Do you believe in the “Trinity”? Pray tell, where is that word used in Scripture?
(… rhetorically and for the sake of charity I would like to leave it at that and presume that you can see the flaw in what you have concluded – but I should probably be extra careful to be crystal clear and not leave such things presumed. If you believe in the “Trinity” then you believe that concepts are found in the Bible which are never mentioned as such. This is in direct contradiction to your claim concerning my conclusion.)”

This was NN’s response to repeated requests for what it is in Eph 5:22 and what he claims to have read in scripture that supports his thesis that the presence of eros in marriage constitutes a patriarchal hierarchy. I pleaded with NN to sell me his conclusion, but he never provided anything.

I have made no claims, so I don’t know what misconceptions he is talking about. I am simply interacting with his claim.

So, when NN asks one question about my conclusion (which he doesn’t identify because I haven’t made one) he diverts attention to the concept of the Trinity and the word not being in the scripture though the concept is. When he did this, I recognized it for what it was and didn’t address it.

I know you may not have read all the comments concerning this topic, but the comments at 416 seem to me like a misrepresentation of what I believe the thread reveals. The thread I believe reveals that the the issue with NN’s claim was not whether eros was a biblical concept but whether as NN claims Eph 5:22 and all the available evidence in scripture he has read establishes a patriarchal hierarchy because eros exists in marriage.

your comment at 416 was
426 NN was attempting to find common ground with SM by showing that a concept can be Biblical and used to understand concepts in the Bible even if the word is never used. Eros is clearly in the Bible as a concept. And Biblically eros should only exist between husband and wife, it is a distinction of that relationship. Using eros to describe a relationship in the Bible is no different than using trinity if we adhere to the parameters that cheryl set forth.