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!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

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!

HAHAHAHAHAHA You say this in the same breath as you attempt to cite Clement, Calvin and Tertullian as scholars for your position.

It's not "pulling from here and there" as much as listening to the evidence, weighing it out and deciding which you agree with. And not always to you have to find a resolution in the matter. It's okay to say you don't know. Imagine that!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

HAHAHAHAHAHA You say this in the same breath as you attempt to cite Clement, Calvin and Tertullian as scholars for your position.

So when I quote Oneness sources, it's not acceptable, then when I cite other sources....neither is that acceptable??? Perhaps I'll appeal to the men on Mars next!?!? To make matters worse, YOU'RE the one who went on & on about citations from scholars! You really are a comical little fellow Jeffrey......

It's not "pulling from here and there" as much as listening to the evidence, weighing it out and deciding which you agree with.

In other words, "pulling from here & there!"

And not always to you have to find a resolution in the matter. It's okay to say you don't know. Imagine that!

When it says "not with gold, pearls, or costly apparell." Ughhhh, I think he probably means what he says! Now, be a good little "scholar" & compare that to eating/talking !!!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

When it says "not with gold, pearls, or costly apparell." Ughhhh, I think he probably means what he says! Now, be a good little "scholar" & compare that to eating/talking !!!

Still same strategy I see. "Not with" on repeat x 20 even after you yourself have proven that this phrase without context does not give us interpretation. But as you were

For the LAST time... it's not a point of comparing eating and talking. Read that 20 times just to cover your future repeats. What makes the verse right or wrong is not comparing eating or wearing clothes or talking and decide which is most important and therefore has more meaning. DOH! That's exactly everyone's point to you. You attempted to set-up a straw man by suggesting our "rule" was a blanket, and wouldn't work in certain scriptures (Romans 13 for example). Our reply was a slap on the forehead -- of course not, because that's not our argument. Way to show you lack listening skills! Our point is the word needs context. You agreed after we submitted verses that were OBVIOUS and you agreed. Now quit playing stupid.... at least I think you're playing.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Still same strategy I see. "Not with" on repeat x 20 even after you yourself have proven that this phrase without context does not give us interpretation. But as you were

Well you're getting closer [remember that forest/trees analogy?]. For probably about the 30th X now, the [here, let me help ya' out by putting it in caps] CONTEXT IS ABOUT THE EXTERNAL ADORNMENTS, WHICH HAD A 'N-O-T' ATTACHED TO IT, VS. THE INTERNAL ADORNMENTS, WHICH HAS A 'BUT THIS' TIED TO IT." Hello...is anybody at home????

For the LAST time... it's not a point of comparing eating and talking.

Then quit appealling to the verses....which YOU guys brought up...not me...moving right along....

Read that 20 times just to cover your future repeats. What makes the verse right or wrong is not comparing eating or wearing clothes or talking and decide which is most important and therefore has more meaning. DOH!

More explaining away from the Jeffrey bench...about verses that YOU guys introduced!!! Oh, & it's not a matter of which is "most important," it's a matter of comparing natural things [eating/talking to unnatural things [decorative ornamentation to the temple of God].....now, YOU read that for about the 20th time "to cover your future repeats." !


That's exactly everyone's point to you.

And MY point to them is that they use verses dealing w/ things internally natural to things externally unnatural. Should I put this in another language so you can understand it?
You attempted to set-up a straw man by suggesting our "rule" was a blanket, and wouldn't work in certain scriptures (Romans 13 for example). Our reply was a slap on the forehead -- of course not, because that's not our argument.

I simply demostrated that you won't be consistent in your usage of self-imposed idioms....& the point still stands, regardless of your backtracking in Eph. 5 & Rom. 13. Fact remains that you're inconsistent....go figure....next....


Way to show you lack listening skills! Our point is the word needs context. You agreed after we submitted verses that were OBVIOUS and you agreed. Now quit playing stupid.... at least I think you're playing.

Hmmm let's see, "stupid, pharisee, thick, legalist, puritan,".....& you want to school ME on behaviour?? You guys are a hoot...seriously! Repent & believe/obey the Bible!

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by rdp

Hmmm let's see, "stupid, pharisee, thick, legalist, puritan,".....& you want to school ME on behaviour?? You guys are a hoot...seriously! Repent & believe/obey the Bible!

Well you're getting closer [remember that forest/trees analogy?]. For probably about the 30th X now, the [here, let me help ya' out by putting it in caps] CONTEXT IS ABOUT THE EXTERNAL ADORNMENTS, WHICH HAD A 'N-O-T' ATTACHED TO IT, VS. THE INTERNAL ADORNMENTS, WHICH HAS A 'BUT THIS' TIED TO IT." Hello...is anybody at home????

Seriously, that made about as much sense as a bum on a street corner.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Seriously, that made about as much sense as a bum on a street corner.

Of course you would say that...."the carnal mind is not subject to the things of God, neither indeed CAN BE."