Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

I see, so I simply believe what the Bible says, yet that's somehow classified as "misusing" the Scriptures??? You guys are hilarious!

Care to comment more on the Segraves angle here? You are the one who name-dropped after all....


You are forceful enough with your sloppy theology that a PhD would really give you that extra boost of credibility. I have connections with a really cool school - Southern Eastern University UK. We can make you an expert overnight! Let me know.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by rdp

If I'm "thick" for believing what the 2 foremost apostles instructed the church to "not do," but "do this,"....then I'm "thick!" I guess it's better than being "thin"!

Try again boys...it's still there!

As a matter of fact a close reading of Bernard on this passage doesn't uphold your view either.

He quotes 2 sources The Tyndale new Testament Commentaries and the Wycliffe Bible Commentary...neither of which hold your view. Practical Holiness a Second Look pgs 156-157.

In Search of Holiness cites no scholars on this passage.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I didn't call you "pure."

Your mangling my words like you do Paul's. Careful now

Ughhh, from where would you suppose the word "pure" derives etymologically:_______? Need some help? "p-u-r-e"! Wrong about that just as you are "not with gold...".

Try again................

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ughhh, from where would you suppose the word "pure" derives etymologically:_______? Need some help? "p-u-r-e"! Wrong about that just as you are "not with gold...".

Try again................

HAHAHA. Thanks for doing what you're doing right now. Really showcasing, quite nakedly the broken logic you have brought to the table here.

Exhibit Z of what you do to the human language.

Because the word "Puritan" has etymology with the word "pure," therefore when I called you a "Puritan" I was really calling you "pure." hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaa

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

As a matter of fact a close reading of Bernard on this passage doesn't uphold your view either.

He quotes 2 sources The Tyndale new Testament Commentaries and the Wycliffe Bible Commentary...neither of which hold your view. Practical Holiness a Second Look pgs 156-157.

In Search of Holiness cites no scholars on this passage.

Ouch. Someone just got called out.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

i wasn't comparing eating vs ornamention(what ever that is)

I was just showing how the word NOT was used to not mean a literal sense all the time in scripture.

John said love NOT in word, so does that mean we can't tell someone we love them??? You know it says not to do it.

rdp, I will not stand back and watch you erase the Word of God. NOT - IT'S CLEAR AND PLAIN!!!! YOU COMPROMISER. You have itching ears.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The only "un-Christian" thing in the last couple of seconds is your judgementalism on someone who wears a ring in their lip

Oh brother...Hey Jeffrey is homosexuality a sin? Are you basing your answer off of the Bible? Watch that "legalism" now !

Way to stretch for an extreme and still fall short.

According to the wordly crew!

Eph 5/Romans 13? Think I handled that quite well thank you.

Take a good look at the guy dancing around below, this is what you did w/ Eph. 5 & esp. Rom. 13. The criteria you use in I Tim. 2 doesn't work in Eph. 5/Rom. 13...then you wanna' talk to ME about "hermeneutics"????????

The issue is you want to base interpretation exclusively off the word "not" (which is why you sent those scriptures), then when others confronted with other scriptures in the same style, you appealed to context.

Wrong again Jeffrey...you guys tried to force eating & talking into the same category as decorative ornamentation...which is laughable! Next....

This is what you're doing:

Looks like Jeffrey in Rom. 13!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Care to comment more on the Segraves angle here? You are the one who name-dropped after all....


You are forceful enough with your sloppy theology that a PhD would really give you that extra boost of credibility. I have connections with a really cool school - Southern Eastern University UK. We can make you an expert overnight! Let me know.

Not interested...or I could've pursued it along time ago!

If "sloppy theology" means believing the Bible...then "sloppy" I am.

"Let NO MAN REMOVE YOU FROM THE SIMPLICITY WHICH IS IN CHRIST." You'd be a whole lot better off to exchange your "exegesis" for what the Bible simply says!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

HAHAHA. Thanks for doing what you're doing right now. Really showcasing, quite nakedly the broken logic you have brought to the table here.

Exhibit Z of what you do to the human language.

Because the word "Puritan" has etymology with the word "pure," therefore when I called you a "Puritan" I was really calling you "pure." hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaa

Strawman alert! My point is that you cannot separate the term from its root meaning...another blunder from the Jeffrey bench!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Looks like Jeffrey in Rom. 13!

Wrong again Jeffrey...you guys tried to force eating & talking into the same category as decorative ornamentation...which is laughable! Next.

Uh... Actually we were applying your logic that insisted, because of the word "NOT" being so "clear and plain" that context must not matter. But you later changed your mind on that.

We haven't forced anything. You have. Still not getting it?

Wouldn't eating and talking be more substantive than adornment? I bet I can find more scriptures references our conduct in eating and talking than I can adornment. But alas, I of course realize interpreting verses require a consideration of context, understanding what is being said and to whom and why. And when reading the word "not" in these passages, the only explanation is that he using contrast (not that but this) to support his primary point. Getting Deja Vu.