Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

Then grab your "glossary"! Yes, she was making an ad hominem. But, running out of time to explin....gotta' teach a Bible study tonight, in which I'll be demonstrating your logical fallacies to the many there.

Was not!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ahhh....then they wouldn't be classified as "beggars" would they ! Tks. for the help....yes, you need to call someone to help you out, but I've never been to impressed w/ ol' Jeffrey either [since he says it's okay for a preacher to be decked out in jewelry w/ shorts & tank top!]........tooooooooooo hilarious!

Follow the conversation. This is responding to MB's claim about those who receive assistance from the government or others. This is an equivalent of a beggar. Someone asking for assistance, and getting that assistance. Must they wear a robe, have sores and sit at the city gates to be qualified as a beggar?

(And the Psalm doesn't say "beggar" it says "seed begging bread." Ahem... hungry. Running the streets. Not provided for)

Yeah, that is SOOOOOOOO hilarious that a guy would think it unsinful for a preacher to have shorts on. Oh man, I'm slapping my knee over here.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

Oh....I'm doing just fine! Both were depicted as "coming in".....not "already in"....looks to me like you're the one who needs to "keep up!"

Incorrigible.

[MissBrattified]

rdp,

You do not want to take I Timothy 2 literally, because if you do, you will have to allow jewelry that isn't made of gold or pearls or costly metals. It mentions specifics and doesn't say that decorative pieces aren't allowed. If you use CONTEXT, however, you can support the point that overall, modesty in all things is preferred. If you take a literal approach, there are holes in your list of rules. I also hope you preach against buying expensive clothing. (To be consistent, I'm sure you do - but I would prefer a confirmation on your part.)

Additionally, there's the question of costly array; do we go by what it actually cost? Or by what it SHOULD have cost? I routinely buy clothing at a discount or on consignment that cost much more originally, but I didn't pay that price. So is it "costly" if it's high quality and has a related value? Or is it costly if I buy something I can't afford? Is it only "costly" if it's expensive, and what would you call expensive? Is it more important that my clothing LOOK cheap or actually BE cheap? Should we strive to avoid offense and make sure that whatever clothes we purchase look like they were sewn together by elves, using the cheapest, lowest quality fabric available?

P.S. I hope you preach against braided hair.

If I take the verse literally, then there is a LOT of jewelry I am free to wear.

[Charnock]

Whoops!

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ahhh yes....typical Truthseeker "apologetics," I can't explain Js.....so I run to Rom. to invalidate the word meaning that I supplied from some of the most authoritative lexicons on the planet! Your argument is w/ Thayer, Vine, etc....not me!

Ho-Hum......................

You stated greek meaning for poor was begger, the same word is used in romans for the saints at jerusalem. Not complicated.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

You stated greek meaning for poor was begger, the same word is used in romans for the saints at jerusalem. Not complicated.

Bumping just in case he strays in his response again.

[The Lemon]

After pages and pages of debate I think it is safe to say that RDP isn't changing anyone's view on here anymore then anyone is changing his view.

Really at the end of the day if anyone wants to take the versus literally and be super conservative, what is the harm? The only issue is when said person(s) put everyone else is the second class Christian row for not sharing their same view, but really at the end of the day I don't have to go to their church and I don't have to answer to them either.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by The Lemon

After pages and pages of debate I think it is safe to say that RDP isn't changing anyone's view on here anymore then anyone is changing his view.

Really at the end of the day if anyone wants to take the versus literally and be super conservative, what is the harm? The only issue is when said person(s) put everyone else is the second class Christian row for not sharing their same view, but really at the end of the day I don't have to go to their church and I don't have to answer to them either.

RDP is changing quite a few peoples views Just not in the way he hopes he is.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by The Lemon

After pages and pages of debate I think it is safe to say that RDP isn't changing anyone's view on here anymore then anyone is changing his view.

Really at the end of the day if anyone wants to take the versus literally and be super conservative, what is the harm? The only issue is when said person(s) put everyone else is the second class Christian row for not sharing their same view, but really at the end of the day I don't have to go to their church and I don't have to answer to them either.

How true much like a debate going on in the debate room.

Originally Posted by jfrog

RDP is changing quite a few peoples views Just not in the way he hopes he is.

That is right, although I use to view things like he did, God showed me the light, years ago. I found that the best way is to just live truth before others and let God show them on his time. My daughter and son in-law were that way. Took them two years after I quit arguing with them, and just ask God, If what I saw was truth show my son in-law and daughter.

What is amazing is how God's spirit shines through our lives with out the legalistic trappings I used to call our separation from the world.