Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[The Lemon]

Well, at least I can tell where both of you stand RDP and Jeff. Believe it or not it has been a contrast worth reading from my perspective. I can honestly see the points both of you are making and why you are making said points.

My only observation is this, and this is just my own experience talking, it is not my job to try and convince somebody that they are wrong on issues that they may take what is referred to as "Ultra Conservative", I realize way to much energy will be wasted in trying to de-bunk something an individual really feels strongly and passionately about concerning the scriptures.

Having said that, in matters that are conviction oriented on a personal level, and have no bonds to every individuals salvation in Christ, I respect there view, and same in vice versa. I suppose the only concern left would be if any one uses the pulpit or platform of witness to label and call something sin that the Bible does not designate as such, but obviously we could digress on this rather easily.

Basically...I respect both RDP and Jeffery for there individual thought out views on this subject, thanks for sharing.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey
I've addressed your claims above. If you'd like, I can copy/paste some Fee or Moo on Paul's use of "not this, but that" language.

Spare me Fee & the rest of them if you're not gonna' believe ALL of their doctrines....do you Jeffrey:________? I doubt it.

Now, the "not this" was external ornamentation, the "but that" was internal ornamentaion. Very good Jeffrey, now apply it to your life!

Maybe that would help.... then again, not sure what would help. We are just talking at each other anyway.

Yes, because I'll not let you guys erase the Bible! It's still there in black & white....& will be on the day of judgement also.

No one is ERASING anything lol I thought you understood this whole goal of interpreting concept.

Let's turn now to historical evidence, busts, statues, etc... We have no historical evidence that shows people of the Way did not wear jewelry. There's a great documentary out on Hassidic Judaism. If you wanted to live as strict as they do, not freed from the Law, and as pious as ever... yet you find their women with cut hair, jewelry and make-up.

So now I have to believe all of a scholar's conclusions to take as valuable any of them? That old argument? You're really going there? Throw away your Bible. Throw away 90% of your book collection, your Bible atlas, your commentaries, your devotionals, your concordances, all of it. Be consistent
Read only what you write. Enjoy your intellectual incest. I prefer to enjoy coming to the table with other brothers, in a Talmudic/Midrashic way, sharing different perspectives and learning from each other. But that's just me

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Don't have to be too "wide-eyed" to comprehend "not with gold....", it's pretty plain!

You missed the poetic sense of how I was saying wide-eyed didn't you

Pretty plain.... hahaha... and cue the repeat button.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by The Lemon

Well, at least I can tell where both of you stand RDP and Jeff. Believe it or not it has been a contrast worth reading from my perspective. I can honestly see the points both of you are making and why you are making said points.

My only observation is this, and this is just my own experience talking, it is not my job to try and convince somebody that they are wrong on issues that they may take what is referred to as "Ultra Conservative", I realize way to much energy will be wasted in trying to de-bunk something an individual really feels strongly and passionately about concerning the scriptures.

Having said that, in matters that are conviction oriented on a personal level, and have no bonds to every individuals salvation in Christ, I respect there view, and same in vice versa. I suppose the only concern left would be if any one uses the pulpit or platform of witness to label and call something sin that the Bible does not designate as such, but obviously we could digress on this rather easily.

Basically...I respect both RDP and Jeffery for there individual thought out views on this subject, thanks for sharing.

Unfortunately, RDP does believe this issue affects one's position with Christ because he believes the jewlery prohibition is spit from God's mouth, from the Text, and therefore one who disobeys is rebellious, a sinner, delusional or otherwise.

If it's a matter of conscience, fine. I respect that, guard that, and honor that in love. If it's a matter of taking hostage scripture and using that misinformation against your other brothers, throwing stumbling blocks in the way of the cross that Jesus didn't put there, Jesus has a problem with that, and so do I.

I can respect his position, but frankly, this discussion has gone nowhere. It's been cycled on "repeat" for about 3 months.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

1 John 3:18

18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
KJV


Does these mean I can't tell my wife or children I love them? It says not love in word??


John 6:27

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
KJV


Does this mean we should stop working to buy meat??

I mean it's clear and plain, God-breathed! Stop erasing scripture TS!

[Truthseeker]

To be honest i can see both sides of the arguement. It all hangs on the wording "not with" does it mean literal or something else. I find it interesting out of all the law commands not one time is jewelry mentioned. he tells them what not to eat, clothing types, when to work, etc.... but leaves out jewelry???

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

1 John 3:18

18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
KJV


Does these mean I can't tell my wife or children I love them? It says not love in word??

Do you HONESTLY believe that there's a comparison to speaking & ornamentation??????????? Get real......


John 6:27

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
KJV


Does this mean we should stop working to buy meat??

Or, do you HONESTLY believe that there's a comparison to eating & ornamention????? Remember that bit about "context"? Before you say it, the context of I Tim. 3 & I Ptr. 3 was the contrast of outward decoration w/ inward decoration. The former had a "not with" connected to it, while the latter had a "but this" appended to it!

Ever heard of the "Fallacy of Equivocation"?? Not to mention what this says about those who agreed w/ this silly post. Sorry Charlie, try again!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

To be honest i can see both sides of the arguement. It all hangs on the wording "not with" does it mean literal or something else. I find it interesting out of all the law commands not one time is jewelry mentioned. he tells them what not to eat, clothing types, when to work, etc.... but leaves out jewelry???

In 1 Peter, TS, it's really not even remotely questionable what is going on.

Look at it in several renderings (ESV, Amplified, NJKV, etc). The items mentioned after the "external" are a "such as" or a "for example." Women, you're beauty is not in all those things that women do, for example _____, but rather you're beauty is an internal wellspring coming from an adorning of the heart.

1) This is an exhortation
2) The word "not with" is in the arrangement of a "not that, but this" syntax.
3) The writer was not having a knock-down drag out with his audience over any particular issue at this point (like many epistles are). There is instead an exhoration to both men and women, and both exhortations appeal to those things which are common for men and women at the time.
4) I have not read one single scholarly opinion that reads this verse like a prohibition on jewelry, fashion, clothes or otherwise.
5) A prohibition on the wearing of jewels is not consistent with the full-range context of scripture
6) The "apparel" issue is glaring ("it's so clear and plain!" )

There are times when I examine the scholastic evidence and I lean one way over another. For example, with rdp, he probably doesn't know it, but I lean more complimentarian than I do egalitarian (there's a big astrick on my leanings which should be further explained on a thread where appropriate), but I'm not certain. And I readily admit to others I discuss that with: here's where I am with it, but I'm not certain. With this topic, however, I have no inkling of doubt.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Nice dance?

Precisely!

You're impossible. Grammatical contrast is identical? How about contextual contrast? How about syntactical contrast? A word can be used the same way, even a phrase, and it not reflect the same meaning either time.

Ughh, all of the above are the same, therefore, you should apply the same reasoning to all. But, you don't, then wanna' throw out the ol' context card. Well, apply "context" to I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2, which was the external [accompanied w/ a "not"] w/ the internal [accompanied w/ a "but this].

Good grief, what in the world can you not see about that?

And even if we lived in a fantasy world where you applied rules like that to the Text (all must be interpreted identically without consideration to the message/content/theme),

Strawman alert! I never said that we didn't consider context....but the context of I Tim. 2 works against you an pointed ad nauseum! Next.....

I'd still tell you that in those cases Paul was not prohibiting

The I would tell you that you're nuts! According to this, then neither is Paul "prohibiting" drunkenness!! And I'm supposed to take you seriously?????

-- and furthermore, we have separately clear scripture and instruction on how we can view these obvious sins.

Yes, such as "not with gold, pearls, or costly array." Put down the eraser Jeffrey...it ain't goin' nowhere!

The dance is on your floor, and it appears you have two left feet.

Then at least I'm consistent in my steps...which is more than I can say for you!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Or, do you HONESTLY believe that there's a comparison to eating & ornamention????? Remember that bit about "context"? Before you say it, the context of I Tim. 3 & I Ptr. 3 was the contrast of outward decoration w/ inward decoration. The former had a "not with" connected to it, while the latter had a "but this" appended to it!

Ever heard of the "Fallacy of Equivocation"?? Not to mention what this says about those who agreed w/ this silly post. Sorry Charlie, try again!

Does these mean I can't tell my wife or children I love them? It says not love in word??

Do you HONESTLY believe that there's a comparison to speaking & ornamentation??????????? Get real......

Oh, so NOW context matters. So we can't just apply an across-the-board rule that the "not with" phrase brings meaning to the text, but that context is important here? You just contradicted your own rebuttal. Your rebuttal to me as I offered an explanation of the "not this, but this" language, was indeed, the "fallacy of equivocation." Glad you knew what that was

You see, you never said the content had to make a lick of difference. You were claiming that "not with" is clear and plain and refused to consider anything further on the matter. So which is it rdp?