Well, yes, but:
Paul is asking husbands not just to love their wives, but to love them with Christ-like devotion, sacrificing themselves for their wives.
When someone goes to the cross for someone else, I think it’s a tough call re: who’s the leader and who’s the servant. A true leader should be a servant at the same time.
If we just went by your paraphrase, you might be correct. If we read the text of Matthew 15:1-20, a very different picture appears:
In otherwords, he was turning the Judaic law, the “traditions of our fathers” contained in the Talmud, on its head. He was demanding that the Pharases return to the Tetrarch, God’s law.
Jesus wasn’t expanding the definition of the sins of adultery or lust. He was merely explaining that before one says something, he thinks it, and then it is expelled from the mouth - the reverse of Judaic law which said pollution or sin is cause by injesting certain things.
You are right in one respect about Paul. “Following HIS vision after Jesus was dead”. Jesus was long dead before Paul’s conversion. Even though he never met the man, never heard a single one of his sermons, Paul was so adament that HIS (Paul’s) version of Christianity was right that he forced out Jesus’ own brother, James.
Ok… So maybe this is a new question, but it does pertain to this thread… “Jesus said this…Paul said that…” etc. My Question:
Why are Paul’s letters and others a part of the Bible? Would it have not been good enough to let Jesus own words and life (the Gospels) be the final part of the Bible? And interestingly enough…is it not the books that follow Matthew, Mark, Luke and John… that cause so many people today to take offense to what the Bible says?
Cite?
Your first comment seems to indicate a misunderstanding of the chronology of the creation of the Talmud.
Your second statement shows a rather poor understanding of the Holiness Code which is, indeed, a part of the Law traditionally handed down to Moses in the Sinai (that would be directly from God).
While Jesus was clearly making the point that sin originates from within a person, he made no claim that the Holiness Code was to be rejected–only that it was not to be worshipped (somewhat in the way that some people worship the bible, today). Paul’s setting aside the Holiness Code for Gentile converts is couched in language that indicates that the Law has no specific power over the Gentiles, however, there is no indication that Paul actually set aside the Holiness code for Jews–and there are hints that he continued to follow it, himself.
lest we forget paul was not married. perhaps things may have been different if he were.
in a most generous reading of paul letter, he could be saying, wives take your husband’s wishes and desires in to account when coming to a decision that will affect both of you, and perhaps just perhaps, give it a bit more weight because he will give his life for you. husbands just because it may be easy to ride roughshod over your wife, you should not. because what you do to her you do to yourself. if you abuse her, you abuse yourself, if you strike her, you strike yourself, if you tear her down, you are torn down.
Well, for one thing, Paul’s letters are older than the Gospels. Paul also is one of the most remarkable figures in early Christianity. He took a small religious group and turned it into an almost empire wide belief system. I also find him a lot easier to understand than Jesus. A lot of times Jesus makes grand statements that are kind of hard to understand. Paul, on the other hand, is more concrete…he asks, “Ok, now we’re Christians…how do we live…what does it mean to be a Christian?”, and he tries to answer that.
Off to Great Debates.
Well then why in God’s great plan were the gospel’s writen with lessor communicatible authors than Paul who seems to communicate with all…?
I don’t fully understand the question. Why didn’t Paul write any gospels? I dunno…Paul, from his writings and what the book of “Acts” says about him doesn’t seem like the gospel writing type. He comes across as a Type A, confrontational type of person with a short attention span and a lot of wanderlust. He just doesn’t seem to be the type of person to sit down and write a biography of Jesus’ life and mission. Look at the writings we have of his. They’re all letters, each one designed to focus on one or two specific topics that the various communities he had been visiting were debating.
It seems that we’re talking about Paul more and less about the subject, so I will give my opinion on the subject. I’m wilth toadspittle’s comments above. Despite my name “bosswoman” 
I have to say that there does need to be a leader in a relationship. And the Bible instructs us that the man should be the head of the home. Funny, I was just reading that. I strongly believe in this. Now, there is no reason for me to. I came from a home where my dad took that overboard, and I was to learn to cook and clean like all good women. Of course because of this, I resented the whole “man being the head of the home” idea. I was actually quite against it, and quite anti-marriage because of how my dad was, and I wanted no man to domineer over me. But I forgot something. After the scripture says women submit to your husbands, it says husbands love your wifes. My question is, who wouldn’t want to submit to someone that absolutely loves her, is looking out for her best interest, and is willing to lay down his life for her? If he’s going to put me before his own agenda because he loves me, then it’s all good! But in finding a husband one has to look for one that is totally in the right line of thinking about this passage.
Just my opinion,
Bosswoman
Hmmm…well, maybe. But Jesus himself didn’t say anything about wives and husbands…
Correction of the record: it was, in fact, after Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus is not still dead.
Masonite sed:
Huh?
Bosswoman said something similar, but I’m simply not getting it. If a disagreement is irresolvable, it won’t be resolved. In my ten years of marriage I have never encountered anything my SO and I could not reach a consensus on, because we are committed to consensus. We compromise, and we discuss, and we come to a conclusion
Sure, at any given time someone will be dominant. I’ve had the same sort of experiences grienspace has. And there will always be different responsibilities (I mow the lawn because I enjoy it and my SO doesn’t, we both change the litter box because we both despise it equally).
Anyhoo, why on earth does a marriage require a boss to whose decisions the rest of the household acquieses? Why a single General where two can work?
Yeah he did. In Matt. 19, he says that husbands and wives shouldn’t divorce.
In Matt. 22, he says that people won’t marry at the resurrection of the dead.
In Luke 28, he says that if a man leaves his wife to follow him, he’ll be rewarded in heaven.
Umm - I guess you are talking about me?? 
**
Anyhoo, I think that the point that Masonite is making is that if a couple reaches a point of irreconcilable difference, then they have two choices - one conceeds the point or they break up. In a Christian marriage, where breaking up should never be an option, it is the wife who should concede if they ever reach that point. BUT [python]and zis iz a BIG BUT[/python] it is the husband’s responsibility to try and ensure that the couple never reach that point of irreconcilibility. With open and honest communication, with an attitude of mutual submission, with love for one another, there are really very few problems that cannot be worked through without the need to reach a loggerhead position, as you have pointed out…
I think this may well simply be a recognition that many men are simply too stubborn and proud to back down when that final point is reached and that it is up to the woman to do something if the marriage is to be saved. 
Gp
Indeed, grimpixie, and my apologies.
Fair enough. I don’t agree, but not being Christian I don’t have to.
Oh, I disagree with this one too. I think it is the responsibility of both to ensure such an impasse is never reached.
I’d argue that there are no such problems. Or at least, there shouldn’t be.
There are two categories of household decision for me: those on which I’m willing to compromise and those on which I am unwilling to compromise. Simple enough.
But for me to be unwilling to compromise on an issue says in my mind that it is something I am willing to sacrifice my marriage for. If I am unwilling to bend, it must be something more important than my marriage.
There are very few things more important than my marriage. And if my SO disagreed with me on those things, I never would have married her in the first place.
So then, everything that is not worth ending my marriage over must be open to discussion and compromise, and therefore all decisions that must be made can be made by consensus.
This is how things are in my marriage, and how they always have been. And that’s why I have trouble understanding other systems. I dunno, maybe I just have a wierd perception of what a marriage should be.
Check that.
That’s my view of my marriage. I have no problems with any other arrangements (short of abusive ones).
andros, if more people shared your vision of marriage, the world would be a happier place!!
Gp
Paul’s writings happened after Jesus’ resurrection, which in turn happened after Jesus was dead, so…
::d&r::