Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp
Or, do you HONESTLY believe that there's a comparison to eating & ornamention????? Remember that bit about "context"? Before you say it, the context of I Tim. 3 & I Ptr. 3 was the contrast of outward decoration w/ inward decoration. The former had a "not with" connected to it, while the latter had a "but this" appended to it!
Ever heard of the "Fallacy of Equivocation"?? Not to mention what this says about those who agreed w/ this silly post. Sorry Charlie, try again!
|
The point is "labor not with meat that perishes, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you." In other words, it's a great example of not this, but this. According to your rebuttal (an awful attempt to "foil my logic"), the "not" should be interpreted the same in all cases. You went to your logic thesauraus again and sloshed around the term "fallacy of equivocation." Ironically, it's exactly what your argument was! Yup, clear and plain.
TS's scripture is a perfect example of the "not this, but this" phrasing.
And no, Paul's primary intent was not to prohibit drunknenness, it was to point to the Spirit. However, with the dozens of other OT and NT instructions and teachings against drunknenness, it's no question that Paul used the "not this, but this" analogy within his larger argument of "children of the day" and "children of the night" -- which are clearly good and evil contrasts.
See -- context definitely helps.
Threaded Mode
