|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why should the image of Christ and the Church apply to husband and wife?
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well since the former appears to be a term you made up, perhaps you can explain the difference. I assume you don't mean "worth less," i.e. not worth as much, or you'd have written that. So what does "worth-less" mean in your idiolect?
Yes, of course I mean "worth less", and hyphenated it to play on the more common "worthless".
I can't honestly think of anything else to say about this overweening literalist pettifogging without hitting a C3 violation. Just one of those days...
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Sorry, if trying to understand what you say is overweening literalist pettifogging, I'll never do it again. And suggest everybody else take the same course.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
To the same degree that husbands are expected to be crucified for their wives, yes.
(Why is it that people looking at Ephesians seem to get stuck on the bit about wives?
Because Jesus went to crucifixion believing it was God's will.
But he did not submit to human authority.
There is a significant difference in the imagery.
They are not equal.
Submitting to God is one thing, submitting to humans and their institutions is totally different.
So is sacrificing yourself for them. Your point?
My point is this:
My husband is not Jesus, nor will he ever be - however much he sacrifices himself for me.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sorry, if trying to understand what you say is overweening literalist pettifogging, I'll never do it again. And suggest everybody else take the same course.
Oi! The only ones allowed to be pettifoggers round here are lawyers, like me!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
To the same degree that husbands are expected to be crucified for their wives, yes.
(Why is it that people looking at Ephesians seem to get stuck on the bit about wives?
Because Jesus went to crucifixion believing it was God's will.
But he did not submit to human authority.
There is a significant difference in the imagery.
They are not equal.
Submitting to God is one thing, submitting to humans and their institutions is totally different.
So is sacrificing yourself for them. Your point?
My point is this:
My husband is not Jesus, nor will he ever be - however much he sacrifices himself for me.
And you're not the whole body of the Church, and never will be - no matter how much you obey him. Again, what exactly is your point?
Are you saying that the entire imaging of Christ and the Church in marriage should be discounted, because we aren't actually the whole of Christ and the Church?
If that's the case, then do you also reject the idea that man and women are made in the image of God - since we're not actually God?
(And then why don't we just chuck out the whole of Scripture, on the grounds that we're not actually the people depicted, so it doesn't apply to us?).
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sorry, if trying to understand what you say is overweening literalist pettifogging, I'll never do it again. And suggest everybody else take the same course.
Oi! The only ones allowed to be pettifoggers round here are lawyers, like me!
Yes, but since when do lawyers try to understand what other people say?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
That time will come when we produce documents that are intelligible to non-lawyers and when the Devil ice-skates to work.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
That passage is a descriptive account of a unique test of one man's faith . . .
Aren't all tests of faith "unique"?
No. The Apostle Paul suggests that a way exists by which professing Christians can and should test themselves to see if they are in the faith.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It is not a prescriptive command with universal application in a time (i.e. now) when formal written revelation of God's character is available in the canon of scripture.
So what's the modern, post-revelation standard? Obey the commands of God, unless you know better? [/QB][/QUOTE]
The fully Christian biblical theological tradition, based on the explicit teaching of Jesus Christ himself, requires Christians to read the whole bible as a revelation of who he is, what he has done and how he should be responded to as the one who has fulfilled the Law.
The answer therefore to your question is, I think, no. We are to obey the commands of God, if they are commands in such a way as Christ having fulfilled the Law on our behalf is honoured. We are certainly not permitted to cut the commands of God loose from history or the ministry of Jesus in order to create a monolithic and monochromatic list of legal imperatives. That would simply be religion.
[ 23. September 2012, 12:17: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
