Re: Isaiah 3 and jewelry...
 

I absolutly agree Apostolics have a tendancy to take things out of context although I have not taken it out of context I was leaving it in context just trying to expaining what it was saying to those that take it out of context.
btw I am former Apostolic. I don't know what class I fall into now. lol

Oh please..............
 

Now we've resorted to outright dishonesty I see eh, Joy?

I NEVER said that I Cor. 11 is not talking about headship. I said that not one single reputable translation mentions "husband/wife," but rather the subject matter is heirarchial structure & lineage. 1.) God, 2.) Christ, the Messiah, 3.) Man, 4) Woman. That's what the literal text says...YOU are the one supplying the "Husband/Wife" scenario via your theology.

I see in your 2nd sentence above that it's just fine for you to resort to "Ad Hominem" attacks. Of course, that's what they usually do when they cannot find Scripture to support their position.

As for your "poll," I simply pointed out that you're employing the logical fallacy, "Argumentum ad Populum." That is, an appeal to the populace for your doctrinal posture...which has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ the actual text of God's Word. If this be the case you probably would've been screaming "Give us Barrabbas," along w/ the Jews that day! So, yes, it is a silly suggestion.

So much for your "chicken" charge....LOL.

Finally something we can agree on................
 

Well said!

The reason I'm not responding to this thread is because it's absolutely astounding how far people will go to erase the written Word of God in order to justify their disobedience.

What was God thinking inspiriing Isaiah to enumerate all of those verses regarding jewelry [not to mention the multitude of others]....when jewelry "had nothing to do w/ it"?????????????????????

I guess ol' Isaiah just needed to fill up some space????

Not hardly. Going to another forum...this one is not worth the time..........

Re: Oh please..............
 

Only responding to this to correct what I said before. You are correct that you didn't refer to headship, but stated that the chapter had nothing to do with marriage.

And not only do I disagree with that, but so does everyone else on this forum, and all the Biblical scholars in the world. Headship definitely refers to a marriage whether you want to believe that or not. I highly doubt you make your wife (if you have one) submit to all men as her head.

Re: Finally something we can agree on.............
 

Translation: I'm the head of all women on this forum and they aren't listening to me, so I'm taking my toys and going elsewhere.

Don't let the door hit you in the.....well, you know.

Re: Finally something we can agree on.............
 

I find it funny how people refuse to see what is right before there eyes. Earlyer I refered to Ezekiel 16 where God gave them jewlery and someone came back and said I was using a parablic passage to justify jewlery. Well ya It was still the voice of God to Ezekial telling him what to say. The fact remains God gave Isreal her wealth and she used it in whoredom and God judged her. Bottom line. I mean if God blesses me with a nice car and I use that car to sell Drugs for instance and God takes that car away from me and my home and a few other blessing he has given me does that mean that the car was a sin or the home etc. A Big Resounding No !!! Yet this is how some use scripture to preach doctrines against things they think are wrong. This covers the hair issue and several other issues in my opinion.

Say What?????????????
 

"....and all the Biblical scholars in the world"? Proof pls.:____________? Man, you just make things up as you go apparently! That's an unbelievably off-base statement. Almost as bad as, "Paul will not judge me"!!

Marriage certainly flows into the context, but the passage in question was I Cor. 11:7, which simply says, "....woman [not "wife"] is the glory of man [not "husband"]." Hmmm, do your "scholars" include the approximately 1000 linguistical experts who ALWAYS translate this word as "man" & "woman"?????

I guess you see something that they missed? I doubt it!

Re: Finally something we can agree on.............
 

Translation: I'm not under submission to no man, since I'm a victim of the modern western feminists liberal movement, so no matter how much God-breathed Scripture you provide, I'll just ignore it & attack you out of my rebellious spirit.

Re: Finally something we can agree on.............
 

Agree, "people refuse to see what is right before their eyes." "....N-O-T with gold, or pearls, or costly array." [I Tim. 2:9].

Do you know what the term "not" means?

Re: Finally something we can agree on.............
 

Furthermore, would God someone a nice (and expensive) car as a blessing, then in the next breath proclaim ALL expensive cars as off limits? That is close to what we are being told to believe in regards to jewelry.