Hyphenated last names

[ScottA]

Correction: This whole conversation has been about "hyphenated LAST names" (see the OT)---also known as "sur names" (which you now say you've never been addressing). None of your protests about not addressing sur names make sense (especially when you rebuked VG for not taking her husband's LAST name---how is that not "about sur names"?). That's a rhetorical question, because I sincerely don't want to engage in further conversation.

BTW.....if you're posts are attempts to "get your name out there" as a way to promote your book? You may want to consider that you may be doing more harm than good.

I have been presenting what is written pertaining to those called by His name. The only objection has been the keeping of the traditions of men. Have it your way.

 

[ScottA]

While if I were a single young man looking for a wife in this culture not being willing to take her husband's last name as a potential red flag, I think you are overstating the case. If Christians should take their husband's names, do you have evidence for it from the Bible? The only example I can find is Herodius, and she wasn't a very good example. Taking her husband's name was a Grecco Roman custom (maybe Roman), not a Hebrew one. Roman woman had their father's name before marriage. If Tulius had two daughters, the daughters would be Tulia Major and Tulia Minor. The Bible doesn't call Mary Josepheius after she married Joseph.

Even the traditions of biblical men fall short of the fact that God himself refers to his children as those called by his name. If you put that together with God's words on marriage and that the husband represents Christ...we can either follow what is written, or the traditions of men. It's a choice...which greatly depends on who you are listening to: God or men.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

You keep referring to the traditions of men, while I keep referring to those called by His name in keeping with what is written. So be it.

I think you've used the "Nu-Uh!" response a bit too much in this thread. Do you have anything else up your sleeve?

 

[RedPonyDriver]

You keep referring to the traditions of men, while I keep referring to those called by His name in keeping with what is written. So be it.

And I am STILL waiting for you to present a biblical mandate to back up your distinctly American point of view. You know nothing of other cultural traditions in your feeble attempt to push your American and ignorant point of view on everyone else.

 

[LinkH]

I guess I would prefer if more people would have civil unions rather than weddings. I view marriage as a cultural institution not so much a religious one. It was in fact the last "sacrament" for Catholicism and only became one in the twelfth century, right about the time hereditary titles became a central facet to the feudal landscape... Evidently marriage consists in protecting the property rights of men and their progeny (another type of property) rather than women.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that God ordained marriage. Jesus and the apostles taught on it. The concept of marriage is important for understanding sexual morality as God has revealed it. His law also had Israelite land passed on through the male family lineage.

 

[LinkH]

Even the traditions of biblical men fall short of the fact that God himself refers to his children as those called by his name. If you put that together with God's words on marriage and that the husband represents Christ...we can either follow what is written, or the traditions of men. It's a choice...which greatly depends on who you are listening to: God or men.

Women actually taking their husband's name isn't shown in scripture, except for a Greek or Roman naming convention--- Herod's illegal wife taking the name Herodias. Christians don't all take Christ as their last name either.

 

[Dave-W]

I guess I would prefer if more people would have civil unions rather than weddings.

Where in the bible is there any mention of a "civil union?" OTOH, I see definite references to weddings.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that God ordained marriage. Jesus and the apostles taught on it. The concept of marriage is important for understanding sexual morality as God has revealed it. His law also had Israelite land passed on through the male family lineage.

That's funny. There were marriage ceremonies LONG before the Israelites came on the scene.

 

[mkgal1]

Christians don't all take Christ as their last name either.

Right. That's why I have NO idea where this idea is coming from (that there's been some written precedent set in the Bible).

 

[ScottA]

And I am STILL waiting for you to present a biblical mandate to back up your distinctly American point of view. You know nothing of other cultural traditions in your feeble attempt to push your American and ignorant point of view on everyone else.

I keep giving the distinctly biblical point of view, while you keep showing your true colors by calling names.

 

[ScottA]

Women actually taking their husband's name isn't shown in scripture, except for a Greek or Roman naming convention--- Herod's illegal wife taking the name Herodias. Christians don't all take Christ as their last name either.

Interesting...because God calls us "those who are called by my name." I wonder who is wrong then?

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I keep giving the distinctly biblical point of view, while you keep showing your true colors by calling names.

Again you show your lack of comprehension. I am DESCRIBING your amazingly tenuous grasp of the English language. I have yet to "call you names".

One more time...are you claiming that other cultural naming traditions are "unbiblical"? Why do you insist on pushing your distinctly Anglo-American tradition as the only "correct, biblical" model?

 

[ScottA]

One more time...are you claiming that other cultural naming traditions are "unbiblical"? Why do you insist on pushing your distinctly Anglo-American tradition as the only "correct, biblical" model?

I am [completely] siding with the biblical model...and if that sounds Anglo-American, well then, Cool!

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I am [completely] siding with the biblical model...and if that sounds Anglo-American, well then, Cool!

Sorry...you have yet to prove your point. You have repeatedly been asked to provide biblical support and have not done so. You are overlaying Anglo-American traditions on your beliefs, which shows a totally erroneous hermaneutic on your part again. Therefore your exegesis deserves all the attention I will give it....none.

 

[ScottA]

Sorry...you have yet to prove your point. You have repeatedly been asked to provide biblical support and have not done so. You are overlaying Anglo-American traditions on your beliefs, which shows a totally erroneous hermaneutic on your part again. Therefore your exegesis deserves all the attention I will give it....none.

My only boast is God's word...and I have base every post on it. And there you go again.

 

[JojotheBeloved]

As far as I'm aware, a person's last name is more cultural than anything - it depends on where you come from. I have a friend who is American but married a man from Spain. In Spain, she learned, people keep their family names their whole lives and they actually all have two family names - that of their mother and their father. So she and her husband compromised. Since they were going to live in Spain, she kept her maiden name but since she was from America (and didn't have two surnames) she also took on her husband's last name. It's a little weird for them sometimes because some people might think they're related through his father, but then they just explain that she's a foreigner and it all makes sense. lol. I also know lots of people in my mother's generation who kept their full name and just added on their husband's last name. So instead of Jane Doe Smith it might be Jane Doe Smith Jones - aka Mrs. Jane Jones. This option would have been my personal preference, because my family is close-knit and very important to me. But I chose to take on my husband's last name instead of keeping my own, because it was really important to him as a symbol of truly becoming one and being excited about joining his family as well. Then again, I know someone else who had a terrible relationship with their father and really hated any connection with him, including the last name. So when he got married, both he and his new wife took on his mother's maiden name instead. They both felt more a part of his mother's family than either of their fathers'. In my view, it doesn't really matter unless it matters to you. Let the couple decide what they want to do.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Jojo, I am hispanic and my name is hyphenated...and I did .not take my husband's name. Mr Scott claims that this tradition is "ungodly". I call it pushing Anglo-American exceptionalism on Scripture that was written long before Christianity came to the Western Hemisphere.

 

[LinkH]

That's funny. There were marriage ceremonies LONG before the Israelites came on the scene.

But God gave Israelites law.

 

[LinkH]

Interesting...because God calls us "those who are called by my name." I wonder who is wrong then?

That's not the same thing as taking a husband's last name. Is your last name the name of the God? Is 'Jesus' your last name? Was Jesus' last name 'Christian'?

 

[RedPonyDriver]

That's not the same thing as taking a husband's last name. Is your last name the name of the God? Is 'Jesus' your last name? Was Jesus' last name 'Christian'?

Naw....everybody knows His last name is Christ!!!!