Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

If Jewelry would ever threaten the condition of another soul, I would think the conviction of the Holy Ghost would always lead to abstinence from it.

I agree. But what the Spirit convicts us to do is the issue. Also, jewelry is not something that would threaten the condition of the average soul.

In Paul's case, I do not think the Spirit would every lead us contrary to showing Christian character. Maybe this is really what its about anyway, the character of Christ. We read into the law of no jewelry at all when its really how we can better show the character of Christ. Can we see the positive, versus the negative, in this scripture?

The overall scriptures must be weighed out, and not a single verse. That means the question of God using a sinful metaphor to represent a holy act makes nonsense out of the picture.

Actually what I meant by this is that Christ teaches us to turn the other cheek and to give one that sues you our coat and cloke both, rather than despising him for taking it. Thats a stark contrast wouldn't you think?

Yes, it is a contrast of covenants. But it shows no contradiction. Contrasts and contradictions are two different things. Because God can change hearts, stoning someone for a sin is no longer the remedy under the new covenant. Either way, RDP alleges a contradiction in the way God looks at things.

Our only example is Christ for he is now our high priest. We look at what he might have worn compared to the priestly attire of the Old Covenant. There is a stark difference. Why did Christ choose this lifestyle and why does he ask us to follow him in the same mindset of modesty and simplicity?

He had a very expensive robe... one with no seams. A seamless garment was costly array, really. So again it all boils down to lack of understanding the context of Peter's and Paul's words.

I know the HG would indeed bid us to all take Paul's advice, else why would it be deemed as the Holy Writ? Now as to the penalty for not taking his advice, thats what is debatable.

Actually what exactly was his advice is the issue. It is not total abstinence from jewelry. It is forbiddence of dependence of jewelry to show Christian character. No matter which way we slice it, the context is not saying never wear jewels.

Thanks and though I may not use RDP methods, I agree with the end result. I just reach that agreement differently.

Although I claim the end result is traditional error and misinterpretation of the scriptures due to not catching the context, I appreciate your civility. You are also not using ridiculous arguments that rdp uses, that make no sense.

[Truthseeker]

18 In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces, 19 the earrings and bracelets and veils, 20 the headdresses and anklets and sashes, the perfume bottles and charms, 21 the signet rings and nose rings, 22 the fine robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses 23 and mirrors, and the linen garments and tiaras and shawls.



Using Is 3 Does RDP teach against perform, linen garments, purses, capes, cloaks as well???

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

18 In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces, 19 the earrings and bracelets and veils, 20 the headdresses and anklets and sashes, the perfume bottles and charms, 21 the signet rings and nose rings, 22 the fine robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses 23 and mirrors, and the linen garments and tiaras and shawls.



Using Is 3 Does RDP teach against perform, linen garments, purses, capes, cloaks as well???

OF COURSE NOT, you crazy man!!! Why on earth would we assume that God hates linen garments, purses, capes and cloaks just because He took them away from Israel as a punishment?

Oh...wait....

[mfblume]

The whole problem which rdp is not able to see is that he is taking one sentence out of the text, a note against "the wearing of gold," and neglecting the context which qualifies that forbiddence saying that a woman is not to win her unsaved husband by such wearing of gold, etc. It is not talking about everyday living in general. And Paul's words stated that women should not think that wearing of gold shows forth their christianity, but rather good works. Why would he mention good works? Why did Peter mention the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit? It is to win her lost husband.

People can lift phrases out of context all day long and convince ignorant people of their doctrine, but to read the overall context and ask what is the overall point, and to notice the contrast being made, the truth comes out and is quite a bit different than what others said about it.

[houston]

Originally Posted by rdp

Actually, she read it right out of the Bible...oughta' try it for yourself! It's quite liberating.

You can make a case for anything using the Bible, when taken out of context.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The whole problem which rdp is not able to see is that he is taking one sentence out of the text, a note against "the wearing of gold," and neglecting the context which qualifies that forbiddence saying that a woman is not to win her unsaved husband by such wearing of gold, etc. It is not talking about everyday living in general. And Paul's words stated that women should not think that wearing of gold shows forth their christianity, but rather good works. Why would he mention good works? Why did Peter mention the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit? It is to win her lost husband.

People can lift phrases out of context all day long and convince ignorant people of their doctrine, but to read the overall context and ask what is the overall point, and to notice the contrast being made, the truth comes out and is quite a bit different than what others said about it.

Thank you!!!!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The whole problem which rdp is not able to see is that he is taking one sentence out of the text, a note against "the wearing of gold," and neglecting the context which qualifies that forbiddence saying that a woman is not to win her unsaved husband by such wearing of gold, etc. It is not talking about everyday living in general. And Paul's words stated that women should not think that wearing of gold shows forth their christianity, but rather good works. Why would he mention good works? Why did Peter mention the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit? It is to win her lost husband.

People can lift phrases out of context all day long and convince ignorant people of their doctrine, but to read the overall context and ask what is the overall point, and to notice the contrast being made, the truth comes out and is quite a bit different than what others said about it.

Oh how rich! "Paul's words stated that women should not think that wearing of gold shows forth their Christianity...". Since you say that Paul "stated" this, surely you can demonstrate where he "states" this:__________? More assumptions from the Mike dug-out that fail to be domonstrated! Not surprising at this point......

[rdp]

Originally Posted by houston

You can make a case for anything using the Bible, when taken out of context.

How funny....the "context" of I Tim. 2:9/I Ptr. 3 is actually what convinced her to abandon her jewelry !

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

18 In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces, 19 the earrings and bracelets and veils, 20 the headdresses and anklets and sashes, the perfume bottles and charms, 21 the signet rings and nose rings, 22 the fine robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses 23 and mirrors, and the linen garments and tiaras and shawls.



Using Is 3 Does RDP teach against perform, linen garments, purses, capes, cloaks as well???

Ughhhh, remember that bit about "context"???? See Bernard's Practical Holiness & In Search of Holiness....just for starters.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree. But what the Spirit convicts us to do is the issue. Also, jewelry is not something that would threaten the condition of the average soul.



The overall scriptures must be weighed out, and not a single verse. That means the question of God using a sinful metaphor to represent a holy act makes nonsense out of the picture.



Yes, it is a contrast of covenants. But it shows no contradiction. Contrasts and contradictions are two different things. Because God can change hearts, stoning someone for a sin is no longer the remedy under the new covenant. Either way, RDP alleges a contradiction in the way God looks at things.



He had a very expensive robe... one with no seams. A seamless garment was costly array, really. So again it all boils down to lack of understanding the context of Peter's and Paul's words.



Actually what exactly was his advice is the issue. It is not total abstinence from jewelry. It is forbiddence of dependence of jewelry to show Christian character. No matter which way we slice it, the context is not saying never wear jewels.



Although I claim the end result is traditional error and misinterpretation of the scriptures due to not catching the context, I appreciate your civility. You are also not using ridiculous arguments that rdp uses, that make no sense.

This coming from someone who says that animal sacrifices today "are not sin" , !!