Quote:
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.
RDP Nope! I've never said that we don't consider context. Simply another unproveable assertion from the Jeffrey bench!
|
You didn't say "no context," instead you kept screaming "it's clear and plain, it's clear and plain. NOT! Can't you read the word?" Then I dealt with the context, offered a way of using the "not that, but this" phrase, and you rejected it with "Argue with the Apostle! Can't you read the word NOT?" That was your rebuttal. So essentially, you rejected context.
Then, when you attempted a rebuttal argument (of my logic you say), you threw out
Romans 13 and a verse in Ephesians in an attempt to suggest the word "not" always does the same thing to a verse. I debunked that, consistently appealing to context, and others offered other verses to show that OBVIOUSLY just because it says "not" or "not with" doesn't mean we literally apply strict prohibitionist interpretations in all verses. You agreed and cited context. We came full circle
But now, you are left wide-open on the verses we are discussing. Context DOES matter, so don't let me hear you keep screaming "Can't you guys read NOT WITH" 100 times. It just makes you sound foolish.
Now... what smart alec comeback will you dance around with this time.
Threaded Mode
