Isaiah 3 and jewelry... - Page 41

Jeffrey · #**401** 07-19-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

See above.

Furthermore, Paul in this section of Romans 13, is making a clear contrast between "day living" and "night living" which seems to be his point along the way. This is not the same goal (of Peter) in 1 Peter 3.

Try again, not with straining at gnats, but with be wide-eyed and open-mouthed to the message!

Truthseeker · #**402** 07-19-2010, 02:11 PM

1 John 3:18

18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
KJV

Does these mean I can't tell my wife or children I love them? It says not love in word??

John 6:27

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
KJV

Does this mean we should stop working to buy meat??

RandyWayne · #**403** 07-19-2010, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

1 John 3:18

18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
KJV

Does these mean I can't tell my wife or children I love them? It says not love in word??

John 6:27

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. But even as a young teen I seemed to understand the context of the verse compared to those using at an excuse for some new extra-biblical 'standard'.
KJV

Does this mean we should stop working to buy meat??

Exactly.

Along the same lines, I am sure that I am not the only one who heard it preached that we should not 'work out' because 'bodily exercise profit little".

rdp · #**404** 07-19-2010, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Not this, but that.

Very good Jeffrey. The "not this" was the outward "gold, pearls, or costly array." The "that" was the inward meekness. The 2 stand in grammatical opposition to one another...you're getting there!

It's language, rdp.

Yes, very good!

And it's NOT really that difficult.

Amen!

Before you look at this as spilled from the mouth of God, falling on our laps today and being Scripture, I think you need to understand that it's still a letter.

Yes, a God-breathed letter to the church! You're getting pretty good...

Your "NOT" fit accompanied with "couldn't be plainer" makes you look like a petulent little one.

Oh the maturity level from those who then slander me when I put the ball back in your court. Sounds like some can dish it out, but....

Not this, but this. Not the language of prohibition, the language of exhortation... a definition of true adornment, not telling us literally to wear meekness as much he's not literally telling us to take off apparel. It's language. A beautiful thing.

Indeed, inward humilty is a "Beautiful Thing," but the outward ornamentation isn't....which is exactly the point of the passages. Sorry Charlie, it's still there!

rdp · #**405** 07-19-2010, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Keep patting yourself on the back. a 12 year old could understand the distinction being made in I Pete.

Precisely! The "distinction" was between the outward ornamentation vs. the inward beauty. Very good!

So under your understanding you must run a nudist colony.

Yea, after I've arguing in favor of modest apparel for about 1 1/2 weeks now !

rdp · #**406** 07-19-2010, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

See above.

NIce dance Jeffrey, but the fact remains that the grammatical contrast of Eph. 5 & Rom. 13 is identical w/ the contrast [given by the same Apostle] in I Tim. 2:9.

You simply cannot erase one, then embrace the others! In sum, the same criteria that you appeal to in I Tim. 2 does not work in Rom. 13. So, be consistent & stop all of the explaining away for a change. Let the Word speak to you, instead of you speaking to the Word....it'll really help when you do!

Out of pocket for the rest of the day.

rdp · #**407** 07-19-2010, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I've addressed your claims above. If you'd like, I can copy/paste some Fee or Moo on Paul's use of "not this, but that" language.

Spare me Fee & the rest of them if you're not gonna' believe ALL of their doctrines....do you Jeffrey:________? I doubt it.

Now, the "not this" was external ornamentation, the "but that" was internal ornamentaion. Very good Jeffrey, now apply it to your life!

Maybe that would help.... then again, not sure what would help. We are just talking at each other anyway.

Yes, because I'll not let you guys erase the Bible! It's still there in black & white....& will be on the day of judgement also.

.

rdp · #**408** 07-19-2010, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Furthermore, Paul in this section of Romans 13, is making a clear contrast between "day living" and "night living" which seems to be his point along the way. This is not the same goal (of Peter) in 1 Peter 3.

Oh brother, you just don't get it do you. There was still a contrast involved...which you are not consistent w/ in I Tim. 2! It's called "Scholastical Integrity"....oughta' try it sometime!

Try again, not with straining at gnats, but with be wide-eyed and open-mouthed to the message!

Don't have to be too "wide-eyed" to comprehend "not with gold....", it's pretty plain!

Jeffrey · #**409** 07-19-2010, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Indeed, inward humilty is a "Beautiful Thing," but the outward ornamentation isn't....which is exactly the point of the passages. Sorry Charlie, it's still there!

Inward beauty is real beauty, that doesn't disqualify us from beautifying ourselves. Also, you get pretty flimsy with the text when you read 1 Peter 3 as saying all outward adorning or "beautifying" is evil. That's not what he's saying at all. And when you accuse of the "real, clear, plain meaning of the text" 1 Peter 3 isn't where we hear about "costly array" (though I doubt one would use rags as analogy of beauty), it clearly, plainly, simply says the wearing of clothes. Talk about plain. The ESV uses a dash, NIV translates the dash with a "such as," the Amplified inserts the word "merely" -- all these exegetes get it. The wearing of clothes, jewlelry and decorating of hair are what women likely did. Paul reminded them that there adording is not external SUCH AS (and he gives some examples), but their adorning is internal (and he gives a beautiful description of that). We molest this scripture to say anything other than that, rdp.

You'd have a better argument with 1 Timothy than 1 Peter. 1 Peter is saying the same thing, but if you want to try reading into a text, I think 1 timothy would be more attractive for you.

Jeffrey · #**410** 07-19-2010, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

NIce dance Jeffrey, but the fact remains that the grammatical contrast of Eph. 5 & Rom. 13 is identical w/ the contrast [given by the same Apostle] in I Tim. 2:9.

You simply cannot erase one, then embrace the others! In sum, the same criteria that you appeal to in I Tim. 2 does not work in Rom. 13. So, be consistent & stop all of the explaining away for a change. Let the Word speak to you, instead of you speaking to the Word....it'll really help when you do!

Out of pocket for the rest of the day.

Nice dance?

You're impossible. Grammatical contrast is identical? How about contextual contrast? How about syntactical contrast? A word can be used the same way, even a phrase, and it not reflect the same meaning either time.

And even if we lived in a fantasy world where you applied rules like that to the Text (all must be interpreted identically without consideration to the message/content/theme), I'd still tell you that in those cases Paul was not prohibiting -- and furthermore, we have separately clear scripture and instruction on how we can view these obvious sins.

The dance is on your floor, and it appears you have two left feet.