Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Ouch. Someone just got called out.

Pratical Holiness cites Clement of Alexandria, Calvin, etc. Do you guys EVER appeal to either of these writers? Looks to me like you're the one getting "called out!"

[Baron1710]

Apparently Bernard does espouse your view of the passage (Page 186-187 practical Holiness a Second Look) and cites...NOT A SINGLE SCHOLAR.

He also hedges just a bit by saying, "If we interpret I Peter 3:3 to refer to all hair arrangements, all wearing of gold, and all wearing of clothing, then obviously it is not an absolute prohibition."

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

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

You can't?

Are you telling me a person that is a Puritan is also pure?


Maybe take a break and come back in 10?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by rdp

Pratical Holiness cites Clement of Alexandria, Calvin, etc. Do you guys EVER appeal to either of these writers? Looks to me like you're the one getting "called out!"

It may cite them but not on this passage.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Pratical Holiness cites Clement of Alexandria, Calvin, etc. Do you guys EVER appeal to either of these writers? Looks to me like you're the one getting "called out!"

I'm happy to appeal to Church Fathers. The exegetes I've read (guys with doctoral degrees in Exegetical Theology, Biblical Studies, etc from actual universities) also appeal to church history. In fact, almost 40% of their books are footnotes!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

I honestly had to check twice to see if I had posted this TO YOU earlier...since YOU are the one w/ the eraser out. You guys use natural practices such as eating to erase unnatural practices such as decorative ornamentation, then wanna' talk to ME about "scholarship" ?????

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

I honestly had to check twice to see if I had posted this TO YOU earlier...since YOU are the one w/ the eraser out. You guys use natural practices such as eating to erase unnatural practices such as decorative ornamentation, then wanna' talk to ME about "scholarship" ?????

Explain it away all you want. It's CLEAR AND PLAIN. NOT... can read the word "NOT?????"



Btw... these are almost your actual words

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

Nope! I've never said that we don't consider context. Simply another unproveable assertion from the Jeffrey bench!

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

Oh, I get it just fine. The Bible says not to adorn yourselves outwardly, but inwardly. You use eating food to erase that !

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.

See above...for about the 20th time now...remember the term "thick?"

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Explain it away all you want. It's CLEAR AND PLAIN. NOT... can read the word "NOT?????"



Btw... these are almost your actual words

Honestly, if eating & talking is the best you've got to erase decorative ornamentation, ya' might wanna' tuck & run!

Gotta' go....don't be sad, I'll be back!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

It may cite them but not on this passage.

Wrong again...keep reading the section on Church history!