Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp
I see, you attack me off of your muddied perceptions [strawman fallacy], & expect me to defend it?? I've NEVER referred to myself as a "scholar, or exegete." YOU supplied that, not me Jeffrey. Thus, you assume what you cannot prove!
Regarding Jer. 4, what has happenned to your theory about figurative verses & sinful symbols over in Ezek. 16? Hmmm, you don't apply the same criteria here do you? And part of what the audience would recognize as harlotry was make-up & jewelry! Tks. for the help!
No, I do not think that every woman who wears make-up & jewelry is a harlot. My point was that figurative verses can cut either way [for about the 3rd time now]. But we do see God repeatedly condemning the wearing of jewelry by His people. Are you guys denying that:________?
Remember, the OT was physical in nature, while the NT is spiritual in nature. Thus, the idolatry in the OT, which was repeatedly connected to jewelry, is now done in the heart/spiritually, which is apparently still connected to jewelry from the way you guys fight it so hard!
Still waiting on you to deal w/ I Tim. 2:9, "N-O-T with gold...". |
Oh, you've announced yourself as such many times
We can hear you loud and clear.
Your point about "figurative verses can cut either way" does nothing more but prove the point many of us are trying to make. They
do "cut both ways," if that's the way you like to put it. I have no issues with that either! Our goal is to hear the message and apply the message. You are zooming in on a piece of the story that you are reading without any consideration of the "figurative" or the context. Your treatment of these OT texts is either woefully dishonest or ignorant. But there's really not another option. Can you find an exegesis of those texts from a worthy scholar that supports your position? I would love to read it.
Your bologna about the OT being physical and NT being spiritual really doesn't help your NT proof-texts much. I'd just avoid going down that road if I were you. The OT is part of the same story, just as literal at times, figurative at others, along with it's highly spiritual moments.
If you read back a few threads, I responded to your
1 Tim 2:9 argument. You decided to ignore that. Remember when I talked about the word "not" as something pointing to a "this, not that" context?
If you read this from v8, he appeals to men at their pride issue, and specifically fighting and arguing. To women, he includes them in this humility charge, tells them their beauty doesn't come from primping in the mirror, chasing the latest fads but from doing something beautiful for God and becoming beautiful doing it. Don't miss the forest for the trees, RDP. The "not" is an indicator that the apostle is making a comparison, a contrast, he's setting up a "for example." To take from that a strict prohibitionist's view does a great disservice to his message.
Expensive clothes, fancy hairdos and overdone jewled up clothing is all mentioned here. This takes us back even to Corinth where the rich Christians would go to the assembly parading their social status (very common for the time) -- it is perhaps acknowledged that Paul may have been dealing with that. Not creating a list of rules of prohibitions, but pointing to "true beauty" and "true humility." That's the Gospel way after all.
Threaded Mode
