Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[mfblume]

Thanks, Jeffrey. The reasonable conclusion is that jewelry is not meant to be focused upon as what makes anyone attractive, but rather the heart. Not to say jewelry ought never be worn, or else the passage sin Peter makes us believe we should never wear clothing. And God was against focus upon it, and association with harlotry and idolatry. But because godly women wore it and nothing was said negatively about that fact, and especially since God Himself used it as figurative of pure and holy love for his lady, other instances of it are fine and good.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I get a kick out of you.

Likewise.....

Women, your true adorning is not external (not a prohibition on all things external), but it's internal. The weightier things are immaterial.



It's not a prohibition. It's called the human language. It's a beautiful thing when you let the Apostle say what he wants.

I do, which is exactly why we do not wear & teach aginst jewelry. The 2 foremost apostles told us not to! You should simply believe what he says.

Ever heard of the Golden Rule Of Interpretation Jeffrey? See here [paraphrased from memorization]: When the common sense understanding of the text makes plain sense, seek no other sense. Therefore, let every statement stand on its own merit, unless the immediate context dictates otherwise.

No Jeffrey, I didn't just make that up...you should give this hermeneutical principle a try sometime...instead of deriding things you apparently do not understand.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Reading comprehension. Someone pass out a test.

I guess when you are set on repeating the words "NOT" over and over and over again, despite us addressing the verse and the phrase its a sign of stubborn defeat.

Then you "guess" wrong! I didn't put the term "not" there. The Holy Spirit did to the 2 fore-most apostles. One to the Gentiles, the other to the Jewish-Christians. They both said the same thing: "Not with gold jewelry...". You come along & torture the text, so that when you're finished, it means exactly the opposite of what it says! Then you wanna' talk to M-E about "exegesis" ???

Shame on you......

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I don't need a grammar instruction on the word "not," apparently you do. What is dependent on the word "not" in this verse? What does it mean? What's the significance of the word "not?" Also, do you ever ask that about a passage -- what is Paul saying?? What's he getting at? Is he trying to deliver a prohibition so legalists like yourself can hang other believers, or is he pointing to something else?

He's saying not to draw attention to oneself thru jewlery, costly apparel, elaborate hairstyles, etc. He means what he said!



Answer the question.

Ughhh, that's what I've been doing for about a week now.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Repent?? LOL You really wonder why we call you a Pharisee?

And we call you wordly & liberal. So, again, one label is just as good as another. Back to the text....

Not material things - like jewelry (just one of the material examples he lists). Take away the "for examples" and it reads: Not material things/external things, but the ornaments of the heart. This isn't an either/or, it's where the young woman finds her beauty. It's stating something I've heard since I was little, that "true beauty is not found in your skin."

It's sad when someone fixates on something so hard that they can't see anything else. That's where you are, RDP. Don't have OCD here. Is Paul's intention to create New Testament list of prohibitions? You really believe that despite the evidence we've discussed?

Of course the context is the showy, extravagant, glitsy, etc. Which is exactly the reason he stated not to adorn yourself in "gold jewelry, pearls, & costly apparel." What's "sad" is how you attempt to expalin away God-Breathed Scripture in favor of your theology. Regarding the "evidence," what "evidence" Jeffrey? If I say, "Look, I'm a cow"? Does that make me a cow? Assertions are "evidence." You fella's only assume what you cannot prove from the actual text.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

RDP, so if I wrote a letter, and in it said:

"It's not going to church that redeems the world, it's about being the church."

You'd make this to read a prohibition against going to church, or a further exhortation?

Would you keep repeating to those who read the verse with the latter in mind, "It says NOT going to church -- clear and plain!" See how silly that sounds?

Well, that's a pretty good analogy, but what if you stated in the letter, "When you come to church, do not draw attention to yourself with screaming aloud." I would then take you to mean what you said.

The plain, ordinary understanding of I Tim. 2:9 is not to draw attention to yourself thru the external ornamentations of gold jewelry, pearls, costly array, etc. I think I'm safe to assume that Paul meant what he said in these instructions.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No I am not. Of course the pronoun relationships are the way they are. How else would God say what I propose without using them? But you are ignoring the distinction of the idols. If God was only dealing with jewelry as you claim, then He would not have to mention idols. One would know to not take any jewelry whether idols are mentioned or not, even it if it was a situation where idols were involved. A broad swoop of the brush against jewelry, period, would be all that is sufficient.

In effect, God was telling His people not to imitate the heathen nations in the promised land...including "their" "silver & gold that is on them." It's still there Mike! Next....



I deny none of the things you state, but the point is idolatry and worship of the jewelry was noted. That is the reason the next verse stated they cannot bring any abominations into their homes.

Recall Achan. What is wrong with a garment? Nothing. But a Babylonish garment? Achan ceoveted them. To wear them? Of course not! Imagine a Hebrew wearing in broad daylight a Babylonish garment. He'd be stoned on the spot. But he hid it. Obviously not to wear. It was associated with idolatry.



I am speaking of the principle of the thing.



Of course. You are still not hearing me. Whether they wore them or not, and the text DOES NOT say they would even wear the jewelry, they took the jewels to themselves. In other words, they would KEEP the jewels as their own property.

You again assume your theology into the text, which never states the same. Israel was infamous for reflecting the practices of the heathen nations, which God was trying to circumvent in Deut. 7:25. "you shall not desire the silver or gold that is ON THEM....". He was warning them not to do what they did...including the wearing of silver & gold, which, of course, was reflective of their idolatry.

Jos 11:14 And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe.

Did that mean they WORE the prey?

Mike, you've gotten' plumb silly now. How can you "wear" a cow???

But worn or not, which is not stipulated nor is the point anyway, possessing the things involved temptation to worship them. Possessing these things was the point. They were considered sacred by heathens. Israel was tempted again and again to worship idols. It's weird, but it's true. Over and over throughout the entire Old Testament we find Israel tempted with idols.

Agreed.

Gen 35:4 And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.

What has that got to do with it?

They took earrings from IDOLS. Idolatry was associated with bejeweling those same idols. Notice that idols and jewelry are repeatedly associated.

Where does the actual text state that they "took earrings from the idols?" The earings were on Jacob's family. Mike, idols DO NOT HAVE EARS...people do! But, you're getting closer when you state that "idols & jewels were repeatedly associated." This has been my point all along!

Look at modern idolatry in the east. They gave luscious gifts of food to idols and jewels and precious stones. Such things when rendered to false gods are considered holy and sacred. They were dedicated to false gods. That renders them sacred to those gods. You're missing the forest for the trees in all of this. Even in the New Testament, Paul said meat offered to idols is okay to eat, just DO NTO EAT IT IN THE IDOL'S TEMPLE. Religiosity is likewise associated with such jewelry.

Same Paul said "NOT with gold, pearls, or costly array." Hey Mike, do you believe that Christian women should run around in bikini's? If no, to what NT Scripture will you appeal to:________?

You actually defeat your own point with Genesis 35. That was the same era when Rebekka wore jewelry. So jewelry IN THAT SAME DAY was not considered taboo. But when it was associated with idols, it was taboo! So the instances in which you find jewelry banned in the Old Testament are always instances of idolatry and harlotry.

Contrare Monfrare'...Is. 3 says nothing about idolatry or harlotry. It was simply the vanity associated w/ jewelry & ostentaion by the women of Jerusalem. God then calls all of it "filth" [Is. 4:4]. Can I remind you that he does not change?

You claim what was acceptable became unacceptable over time. You have no statement in the bible that says that, though. That is why I said you concoct these things. We need explicit statements.

How much more "explicit" can I be than to quote Paul & the phrase "N-O-T with gold, pearls, or costly array."? I'll not allow you guys to just explain this clear passage away...particularly when it's instructions to the NT church.


While you repeat and repepat and repeat the explicit words "NOT THE WEARING OF GOLD," you inconsistently see no need to stand on a single verse, let alone explicit words, that says God accepted jewelry at one point in time and then banned it later in time.

Not a "single verse." Ex. 33, Gen. 35, Is. 3, Jer. 4, Hosea 2, I Tim. 2, I Ptr. 3, etc. Again, God also "accepted" divorce in the OT...which He "hated." But, He amended it in the NT. Are you denying this biblical truism?

Then you respond by saying DIVORCE was hated but yet God did it, you fail to realize you are making associations that are not explicitly made by the bible itself.

Wrong! Fact remains that He disapproved of divorce in the OT, yet did it....just as he did w/ jewelry. Same principle!

When I do the same, you accuse me of talking about something that has nothing to do with the issue. Well, what has divorce got to do with jewelry? Nothing.

Wrong...God permitted both, yet showed His displeasure w/ it again & again. In the NT, He addresses the issues quite clearly. There are reasons for it that I do not feel like going into on here, because you guys do not appreciate the beautiful things of God's clean/righteous ways.

But yet you say to me that Israel worshiping a brazen serment has nothing to do with the issue, when it actually does in principle. You are violating your own rules of what a person can use for bases.

In the jewelry/divorce issue, I made a point about things that God "hated," yet seemed to permit at times in the OT. The NT amends the issue quite lucidly...just as it does w/ ornamentaion on His people. I suppose that I can agree that the brazen serpent is connected to jewelry, but that would only solidify my point further. Jewelry & idolatry walk hand in hand.

The fact remains, that Rebekkah wore these things in the same general era whan Jacob hid jewels from the idols, showing us that, as I stated again and again, it is not wearing jewelry that is wrong, but an abuse of it as in harlotry or idol worship. FOR THAT REASON, God used the picture as a figure for showing His love and heart to His bride. Like your computer on the net -- for porn or Christian chat.

I see, so now you use Gen. 24 to override NT instructions to the church? My use of the OT butresses NT instructions. To make matters worse, even in your Ezek. 16 passage, Israel got in trouble w/ the jewels, if you would just read down a little further...."context, context, context".

Now, divorce IS NEVER SOMETHING SHOWN IN A POSITIVE WAY, like jewelry. You mistakenly said God tolerated jewelry at one time and rejected it at a later time, without any scripture saying so,

Wrong, I Tim. 2 could not be plainer...despite how you attempt to eradicate it from the pages of Holy Writ.

because you feel it is like divorce. God hated divorce but divorced Israel, Himself. But the huge difference is that DIVORCE was never used to show or signify something done in a positive manner and in quite a holy and pure manner as was frguratively giving His bride jewelry.

Okay, but he also used nose rings in a positive figure...can I now do that also? Then, YOU tell ME that times are different today, which is precisely my point regarding I Tim. 2 & the Rebekah scenario. Thus, what you require of me, you yourself violate!



Remember your computer with all the sinful porn at your fingertips that outweigh any evil ever portrayed on TV. It still amazes me that people think TV is wrong and use computers on the net. Wow! Talk about making up excuses.

The difference is that w/ TV, they feed me what they [hollywood, etc.] want. With internet, I feed me what I want! Yes, there is a vast difference in internet & hollywood!



Oh please. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I ASKED YOU WHY PETER SAID "NOT WEARING OF APPAREL" and you never answered? You said something about the Greek which you stated to someone else, and I asked you to repeat it to me, and never saw you tell me what your point was.

Honestly, I don't have the time to just repeat this ad nauseum like this. Go back & reread my previous posts....which you told ME to do earlier. Take your own advice!

Out of pocket 'till Monday.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

I do, which is exactly why we do not wear & teach aginst jewelry. The 2 foremost apostles told us not to! You should simply believe what he says.

Ever heard of the Golden Rule Of Interpretation Jeffrey? See here [paraphrased from memorization]: When the common sense understanding of the text makes plain sense, seek no other sense. Therefore, let every statement stand on its own merit, unless the immediate context dictates otherwise.

No Jeffrey, I didn't just make that up...you should give this hermeneutical principle a try sometime...instead of deriding things you apparently do not understand.

Wow. All that from memory? So proud.

What you described is from the text book of the Literal Method of Interpretation. What you fail to understand is this, also included in the "Golden Rule":

The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.

That's all I've argued on here. To give to the meaning of the verse what it should in customary usage.... nothing else. No one is saying the Apostle is speaking in a metaphor here and that all his words are symbolic.


http://www.biblefragrances.com/studies/interp.html

It's a good site

Not exactly the stuff I've read from Fee and Stewart or from Duvall.

You're making a false accusation, brother. There's no getting around the fact that you've responded to a well-reasoned point with basically nothing.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Then you "guess" wrong! I didn't put the term "not" there. The Holy Spirit did to the 2 fore-most apostles. One to the Gentiles, the other to the Jewish-Christians. They both said the same thing: "Not with gold jewelry...". You come along & torture the text, so that when you're finished, it means exactly the opposite of what it says! Then you wanna' talk to M-E about "exegesis" ???

Shame on you......

Care to share some exegetes with credibility on the subject that agree with your looney interpretation? I can list scores that agree with what I've stated here multiple times. So send the laughy face right back atcha. Once again.... no response, just the same ol' same ol.

The word "not" has you in a knot. Forest for the trees, my friend.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Well, that's a pretty good analogy, but what if you stated in the letter, "When you come to church, do not draw attention to yourself with screaming aloud." I would then take you to mean what you said.

The plain, ordinary understanding of I Tim. 2:9 is not to draw attention to yourself thru the external ornamentations of gold jewelry, pearls, costly array, etc. I think I'm safe to assume that Paul meant what he said in these instructions.

It was a darn good and accurate parallel analogy. Yours was... well... incomplete. You left it in the form of a command.... the "not" is there, but there's no secondary clause Pesky details... Furthermore, the subject of beauty is rather abstract -- not quite the same as didactic instruction for conduct in worship.

Sigh... still in "nots" aren't you.