Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by rdp

I see, so a note gas to be w/in the chp. to be credible! Why do I waste my time? Oh, BTW, I thought the Bible said "Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar." Let me guess, we need a "scholar" to tell us what that means right??? Plumb silly............

Follow real close...a note at the end of the chapter that DOES NOT refer back to the portion of the chapter that you claim it does means you either don't understand how notes work or you are being dishonest.

He quotes scholars in the chapter without a doubt but he does not quote a scholar that supports the view you are stating.

Are you getting this or should I type slower?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

So now I have to actually "say" that I believe in context? Ughhh, I've been pointing out the contrasting contexts of I Ptr. 3 [internal vs. external] for about 2 weeks now! And I'm the "thick" one?? Let me help you out a bit here O' great "scholar."

You're error in appealling to the word "not" w/ eating & words [I Jn.] is what D. A. Carson refers to as "Illegitimate Total Transfer." That is, you attempt to illegitimately transfer the word "not" to something that's naturally inherent to our existence as created by God [eating & talking]. However, decorative ornamentation is "NOT" [call in the "scholar" to interpret the term!] inherent to our existence by God! It's a total intrusion into the temple of God by mankind...which is precisely the reason [along w/ others] that God says "NO" to the outward, but "YES" to the inward! Now, you can make silly comparisons all day long, but it only reveals your lack of thinking.

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,

You know, this reminds me of the Bernard/Gene Cook debate. As I understand it, Cook thought he did a good job, or "debunked" Bernard...when in reality it was a total embarassment to Cook. Sound familiar?
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.

Speaking of "foolish," how many times have I demonstrated that you cannot compare the natural [eating/talking] w/ the unnatural [outward ornamentation]??? And, when you come to Rom. 13...remember that bit about "CONSISTENCY"?????? Tooooo funny!

Now... what smart alec comeback will you dance around with this time.

Smart alec beats "dumb alec"!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You said I called you "pure" because the word "puritan" has an etymology in the word "pure." Come on, rdp, you're really going to keep arguing this?

I called you a Puritan. The etymology is not relevant. It's quite obvious from the CONTEXT that I am referring to those 16th-17th Century Protestants and the later ascetic movements that associated with their beliefs. Actually, it wasn't that deep either. It was more of a pejorative. But whatever.

Fact is... we are actually arguing that? Really? Proof that you'd argue with the moon is purple.

And it's perfectly fine for you to post 3 paragraphs about it, then tell ME that I'D argue about the Moon......you just never will get it will ya'.....I referenced the term...or do you not know what etymology is? It's a term, not a person!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Do you or do you not believe in the value of exegesis?

Of course, but "exegesis" seeks to explain the text, not erase it...next.....

Did you or did you not appeal to a list of scholars (on your own) that included such lofty names as David Bernard and Nate Wilson?

And?????

Did you get called out on false references to "sources"

No, I did not. Bernard reference several scholars. BTW, I count Bernard as a scholar as well [not to mention a fine Christian/Praying man]. Or, do we have to own Post-Doctoral works before we're deemed scholars? Silly!
and then claim it wasn't really important anyway?

My point is that supposed scholars are external appealls to the actual text. Does Paul & Peter qualify as "scholars"? Oh, & by the way, YOU [& Baron] was the one's who asked for the scholars [as opposed to "on my own." Man, you just won't ever get it will ya'????

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Smart alec beats "dumb alec"!

Are you transcribing straight from a book? lol

You are really not getting it. I don't believe a word has one meaning regardless of context? Are you okay?

Re-read my post without breaking it up with comments, as one piece, Maybe you'll get what I just said.

I critiqued your handling of 1 Peter 3, giving context to the "plain and clear" "NOT" that you moaned about for weeks. When I did, you just went back to "plain and clear" and called my handling with the context -- and broad meaning -- an "erasing of the Word of God." Then you attempted to apply this logic in a few scriptures that you thought really showed off your argument. Other posters chimed in more verses that were quite obvious. You agreed context matters..... so if that's where you are, then we can go back to 1 Peter 3 and talk about word context... the "not this, but that" phrase and look at what Paul was saying. You took an exhortation toward something (beautiful spirit) and turned it into a prohibition against something (fashion, shopping, wearing jewelry, make-up, etc). He didn't offer an alternative way of physical beauty, he pointed to a spiritual beauty -- the real us. This doesn't mean we don't beautify ourselves, and that women don't try to look pretty. It's a perspective-changer.

You turned a good steak into a can of Alpo.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

And it's perfectly fine for you to post 3 paragraphs about it, then tell ME that I'D argue about the Moon......you just never will get it will ya'.....I referenced the term...or do you not know what etymology is? It's a term, not a person!

ROFLOL

I'm not exaggerating. I'm really rolling laughing right now.

I'm incredulous that you'd argue something as stupid as what you are.... etymology doesn't have ........ to do with what we were talking about. Term? Person? How about, me calling you a Puritan in no way has any meaning that i called you Pure. How can you argue otherwise? lol

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Follow real close...a note at the end of the chapter that DOES NOT refer back to the portion of the chapter that you claim it does means you either don't understand how notes work or you are being dishonest.

He quotes scholars in the chapter without a doubt but he does not quote a scholar that supports the view you are stating.

Are you getting this or should I type slower?

No comment?

I guess if you can't copy the contents of a book you can't respond.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Follow real close...a note at the end of the chapter that DOES NOT refer back to the portion of the chapter that you claim it does means you either don't understand how notes work or you are being dishonest.

I could put this in all caps so you could understand it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for this one. Bernard directly quotes Calvin, Clement, & others who were far stricter than we are in these matters...or did you not R-E-A-D that portion????

He quotes scholars in the chapter without a doubt

Ohhh, so now he does quote "scholars," isn't this soooo silly!
but he does not quote a scholar that supports the view you are stating.

Where does it say that they don't support the view that we [not just me] espouse here:_________? C'mon Baron, surely you find this quotation affirming you assertion above...can't you???

Are you getting this or should I type slower?

Got it just fine...just as I do "not with gold, pearls, or costly array." Did Y-O-U "get it"?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

My point is that supposed scholars are external appealls to the actual text. Does Paul & Peter qualify as "scholars"? Oh, & by the way, YOU [& Baron] was the one's who asked for the scholars [as opposed to "on my own." Man, you just won't ever get it will ya'????

You offered it up without provocation. You can claim peer pressure all day.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey
Do you or do you not believe in the value of exegesis?

rdp
Of course, but "exegesis" seeks to explain the text, not erase it...next.....

no buts about it. don't accuse anyone of "needing scholars" if you understand the value of exegesis. yes, scholars help us understand what was written as an ancient letter..... glad you agree.

Did you get called out on false references to "sources"

No, I did not. Bernard reference several scholars. BTW, I count Bernard as a scholar as well [not to mention a fine Christian/Praying man]. Or, do we have to own Post-Doctoral works before we're deemed scholars? Silly!

YES. Affirmative. Glad you're getting it.

You eluded that he made scholastic references to points you are supporting. That was false.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Got it just fine...just as I do "not with gold, pearls, or costly array." Did Y-O-U "get it"?

Going back to your "not with" rant? Remember, you already agreed, "not with" is not the end-all to understanding the verse. Let's not digress and backtrack here. We were doing so good.