Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

It's not a shift. I can reference the majority opinion of church fathers on this as well. You may pull here and there from different church fathers as is appropriate, especially those ascetics with extreme views, but that's in no ways a conclusive ownership of 2nd-4th century scholarship.

I'd appeal to history, but you gripe that it's not the BIble -- not understanding history helps develope context which YOU said was critical in determining the meaning of a verse.

Do you also agree with Tertullian on the Trinitarian doctrine? On his discouragement of ejaculatory orgams? On celibacy?

No, I don't perfectly agree with contemporary scholarship on most things. In fact, that's hard to bundle them together for agreement because of the diversity. We agree on the essentials (for the most part) and then read great intellectual discussions about the non-essentials. But your 1 Peter 3 gets absolutely no legit consideration from contemporary scholarship (where we live -- having the advantage of history).

And most "contemporary scholarship" believes in a "3-personed deity" also. Tell me Jeffrey, do you also believe in this? Remember that bit about "pulling from here and there as is appropriate for you?"

Round & round it goes!