[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I've "dealt with that" passage at least a half-dozen times in this thread.

I was referring to the portion that clearly states "N-O-T...the wearing of gold." If you'd get off your ad hominem horse, you might could comprehend what the writer is saying!

Is that how you win an argument? Just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and pretend no one has interacted with your claim?

You guys crack me up! Above, you can be as scornful as you want to be, which is apparently fine. But, when I return the favor, I have a "Pharisee" spirit!?!?! Tooooooooo funny!

Just again, so you can read it --- that "not" gives the passage a "not this, but this" tone, with is primarily used as a "for example" clause.

Nice excercise in eisegesis Jeffrey! Problem is the text doesn't support your assertions, as usual. Your "but this" actually reads "apparel adorning" in the Greek...for about the 5th time now..."just so you can read it." Isn't this fun?

EXAMPLE:
"Let us be followers of Jesus. Not of those who attend services on Sunday, but of those who follow Him daily." My passage is not a prohibition on meeting together on Sundays, it's an exhortation to what is primary, real, of value, etc.

Save your pholosophy for the naive, I'm sticking w/ the Bible...including I Ptr. 3 in its entirety!

Imagine one of our letters getting abused as much as poor Paul's has.

Ughhh, we're discussing I Peter., not I Paul! And yes, you certainly take your liberties w/ Peter's [& Paul's for that matter] letter. Astounding how people apparently are not afraid to tamper w/ the Word of God like that, instead of allowing the text to simply define itself.

Look, don't have time for this non-sense....may check in periodically...rdp.