Isaiah 3 and jewelry... - Page 55

rdp · #**541** 07-20-2010, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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

Ughhh, I know that you didn't LITERALLY call me pure....remember that bit about "context" of statements?????? The puritans took their name from the term "pure" because they saw themselves as "pure," while everyone else was not...according to them.

"LOL" indeeeeeeeeeeeeeed!

Now, watch him get the last word in everyone, then tell ME that I'd argue about the moon

!!!

rdp · #**542** 07-20-2010, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

Yes, & YOU are the one who "changed" the perspective to mean exactly the opposite of what the text literally says! Yet, in Eph. 5 & Rom. 13...time to do some fancy footwork to justify ourselves! Sorry Charlie, I'm sticking w/ the Bible...not Jeffrey!

You turned a good steak into a can of Alpo.

And you've made the Bible of no affect...shame on you!

rdp · #**543** 07-20-2010, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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

Ughhh, Hello, is anyone at home in there? YOU are the one's who've been screaming "we need scholars" for about a week or so now! Good grief....sinking fast Jeffrey!

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.

Yes...as long as they are faithful to the text...Yes, I "agree"!

YES. Affirmative. Glad you're getting it.

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

Nope... not at all! He did indeed refernce scholars who were far stricter than we are....that is, IF you can call Calvin a "scholar," which is another thread!

Jeffrey · #**544** 07-20-2010, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Ughhh, I know that you didn't LITERALLY call me pure....remember that bit about "context" of statements?????? The puritans took their name from the term "pure" because they saw themselves as "pure," while everyone else was not...according to them.

"LOL" indeeeeeeeeeeeeeed!

Now, watch him get the last word in everyone, then tell ME that I'd argue about the moon

!!!

Are you suggesting I couldn't connect the dots of the word "pure" and "puritans?" How did that ever relate to my statement to you! Oh wait, because you went off on some ridiculous tangent about "it's better to be pure" and even referenced word etymology. That was a long route to be cute.

Jeffrey · #**545** 07-20-2010, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Nope... not at all! He did indeed refernce scholars who were far stricter than we are....that is, IF you can call Calvin a "scholar," which is another thread!

I'm not saying we haven't brought in the issue of scholarship. I think it's huge and says a lot that contemporary scholarship lends you no support on these issues.

That's also not to say you didn't bring your "scholars' to the table without provocation.

Also, another poster reading your posts noticed you were almost word-for-word from one of your sources as well. You don't.... ahhh nevermind.
\

rdp · #**546** 07-20-2010, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

Yes, we were.....I thought we had established: A. You're not consistent w/ Eph. 5/Rom. 13 & I Tim. 2/I Ptr. 3. B. You cannot compare eating food to decorative ornamentation.

Yes, we're progressing quite nicely...now obey the language of I Tim. 2 & we're there!

Baron1710 · #**547** 07-20-2010, 07:28 PM

Quote:

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"?

Either you are a liar or you are not quoting from the book you say you are.

I challenge you to post where Calvin supports your view.

rdp · #**548** 07-20-2010, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I'm not saying we haven't brought in the issue of scholarship. I think it's huge and says a lot that contemporary scholarship lends you no support on these issues.

That's also not to say you didn't bring your "scholars' to the table without provocation.

Also, another poster reading your posts noticed you were almost word-for-word from one of your sources as well. You don't.... ahhh nevermind.
\

No problem w/ this Jeffrey....we all quote sources...including Jesus! Do you also agree w/ "contemporary [nice shift, by the way] scholars" about the trinity doctrine...just wondering.

Jeffrey · #**549** 07-20-2010, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

And you've made the Bible of no affect...shame on you!

I've haven't MADE anything of the Bible. I've read it in ways I was trained to do. I've relied on scholarship, reviewed their evidence and reached a conclusion.

Quote:

Yes, & YOU are the one who "changed" the perspective to mean exactly the opposite of what the text literally says! Yet, in Eph. 5 & Rom. 13...time to do some fancy footwork to justify ourselves! Sorry Charlie, I'm sticking w/ the Bible...not Jeffrey!

Still on the "literally says" kick? I thought we kicked that in the butt? Remember when those other guys provided scriptures and you referred to context? Remember that? So let's be careful with the word "literal" that it doesn't really mean "stupid."

The Bible over Jeffrey? LOL You keep to the same game. "PLain and simple" "stick to the Bible" etc Yet, when it's convenient to your argument, the "plain and simple" and "sticking to the Bible" literalism gets abandoned.

Let's be real clear... there is nothing "plain and simple" about 1st Century writings to a 21st Century Westerner.

rdp · #**550** 07-20-2010, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Either you are a liar or you are not quoting from the book you say you are.

I challenge you to post where Calvin supports your view.

I told you already that I don't have the books w/ me, but I recently read where Calvin was adamant aginst wigs, hair dyes, etc. I pretty well quote from memory since I don't own a computer in my house & don't cart around my references.

Gotta' run...try to check back in a couple of days...very busy for the next couple of days...waste of my time anyway 'till you can simply believe the Bible for what it says!