Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by daviidwilson

The same person who was discussing this on the other thread (not the originator of this thread) also says that 1 Cor 11 has nothing to do with headship, therefore all women are subject to all men.

Ya, I already feel sorry for the buffoon who thinks he can order my wife around simply because he is MAN and she is woman. I'll be ordering his behind into pavement if he tries (if she doesn't do it first).

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Ya, I already feel sorry for the buffoon who thinks he can order my wife around simply because he is MAN and she is woman. I'll be ordering his behind into pavement if he tries (if she doesn't do it first).

Mr tough guy!

[mfblume]

Is RDP ever going to directly reconcile the picture of God using what he thinks is a wrongdoing act to represent a holy act? Is he ever going to explain why God would think to do that?

And what is thiis tripe abut a woman being under authority of ANY MAN? Did someone say that? I'd like to see a man try to show authority over my wife.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Is RDP ever going to directly reconcile the picture of God using what he thinks is a wrongdoing act to represent a holy act? Is he ever going to explain why God would think to do that?

How typical. I ask you a question about "costly apparell"....which you totally ignore, then chide me for "not answering," when I've dealt w/ your beloved Ezek. 16 ad nauseum . Perhaps you should go back & reread the older posts in this thread before you charge me w/ the ol' familiar "You're not answering"....& see how many questions of mine you've ignored . Moreover, if the metaphorical language of Ezek. 16 approves jewelry, then what does the metaphorical language of Ezek. 23:40 do?????

Will you be consistent & now apply the same criteria to this verse, which plainly CONDEMNS ornamentation? I hardly doubt it.....watch the fancy footwork fly boys.................

And what is thiis tripe abut a woman being under authority of ANY MAN? Did someone say that? I'd like to see a man try to show authority over my wife.

As for this last issue, I think someone may be referring to a "woman preacher" thread earlier this [or last?] year. Of course, the term "woman preacher" is an oxymoron, since Paul clearly forids the practice [I Tim. 2:11-15]. But, let me guess, this doesn't mean what it plainly says either....right Mike? In fact, why do you even have a Bible, since we apparently cannot take it at face value???

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

So, I shouldn't interpret Paul's instructions to Timothy, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit, as "literal"???? Does this go for the passage that says that "God was manifest in the flesh...."? Is this also non-literal? Jeffrey, you're a hoot!

And just because someone quotes a verse many times, does this invalidate the force of the passage? You fella's just refuse to get it huh....'round & 'round she goes!

What does "literal" mean to you in terms of exegesis? That it can't be exegeted? That it means only what presuppositions you bring to the Text?

When you say "literal" so proudly, what are you meaning?

When Jesus says tells us to take up our cross and follow Him, what does that mean? Literally? When Jesus says we must be perfect, what does that mean? Any exegesis needed?

You must be careful when you confuse "literal" as being the opposite of allegorical or as something meaning non-exegeted. When Paul says "not with gold," you must allow the entire paragraph, section or letter to speak. It's literal gold, but what's the point here? What's the purpose here? Those exegetical basics inform our suppositions about what the "literal" text mean. When one says something isn't literal, they aren't always saying allegorical.

And when I said "your book" that wasn't literal

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Mr tough guy!

I'm actually pretty timid and easy going ("awwww geee Dorthy..... Haww hawww hawww"), but some guy attempting to throw is weight around my wife because of some UC notion that ALL men have authority over ALL women and they must SUB-mitttttt <spit> to them, is looking for a heap-o trouble.

[mfblume]

RDP, maybe you gave the response already that I am looking for. The last few weeks have been extremely hectic for me. I do not have time to go through all the posts. But we can banter back and forth about what who said and what who did not say. But humour me for this one time.

Explain God's reasoning (one more time if you already did) in why He would use a picture that literally is evil doing to represents something that is pure and holy. What, your opinion, was He thinking?

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I'm actually pretty timid and easy going ("awwww geee Dorthy..... Haww hawww hawww"), but some guy attempting to throw is weight around my wife because of some UC notion that ALL men have authority over ALL women and they must SUB-mitttttt <spit> to them, is looking for a heap-o trouble.

A man of God who has understanding would highly respect the auhtority of a husband.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What does "literal" mean to you in terms of exegesis? That it can't be exegeted? That it means only what presuppositions you bring to the Text?

When you say "literal" so proudly, what are you meaning?

When Jesus says tells us to take up our cross and follow Him, what does that mean? Literally? When Jesus says we must be perfect, what does that mean? Any exegesis needed?

You must be careful when you confuse "literal" as being the opposite of allegorical or as something meaning non-exegeted. When Paul says "not with gold," you must allow the entire paragraph, section or letter to speak. It's literal gold, but what's the point here? What's the purpose here? Those exegetical basics inform our suppositions about what the "literal" text mean. When one says something isn't literal, they aren't always saying allegorical.

And when I said "your book" that wasn't literal

Exegesis is the art of lifting out original authorial intent Jeffrey. Haven't you ever heard, "Scripture can never mean what it never MEANT"? Honestly here, why do you guys fight the plainness of this passage...esp. when you concede above that the verse is referring to "literal gold"? We're making progress here! If it's "literal gold," then it's also a literal "not with"!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

RDP, maybe you gave the response already that I am looking for. The last few weeks have been extremely hectic for me. I do not have time to go through all the posts. But we can banter back and forth about what who said and what who did not say. But humour me for this one time.

Explain God's reasoning (one more time if you already did) in why He would use a picture that literally is evil doing to represents something that is pure and holy. What, your opinion, was He thinking?

Well, again you refuse to answer my question about "costly apparel," then expect me to answer your question [which we've already addressed]. BUT, consider the OT sacrifices....were they spoken of by God favorably? Of course! Would it be a sin today to go back & begin animal sacrifices in order to roll your sins ahead? Of course it would [see Gal. 4-5].

I could marshall many, many more examples, but in principle, mankind was not the temple of God on the OT as they are today. A-L-L of the dwelling places of God on Earth have had the jewels INSIDE....NOT OUTSIDE of the temple. But, according to you, this has suddenly changed right Mike???? No thank you.

Now, I'm STILL WAITING on your response to my question about "costly apparel". Is it okay to wear such today? That is, would it be okay for me to wear a $1,000 suit to church?

Probably have to be Thurs. before I can respond...very busy.