Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The point is "labor not with meat that perishes, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you." In other words, it's a great example of not this, but this. According to your rebuttal (an awful attempt to "foil my logic"), the "not" should be interpreted the same in all cases. You went to your logic thesauraus again and sloshed around the term "fallacy of equivocation." Ironically, it's exactly what your argument was! Yup, clear and plain.

What's "clear & plain" is that you don't see that you're comparing natural practices w/ unnatural practices & saying "See rdp, you're wrong!". Yes, you're grossly guilty of equivocating...next....

TS's scripture is a perfect example of the "not this, but this" phrasing.

Actually it's a "perfect example" of equivocating the natural w/ the unnatural & attemting to pawn it off as the same thing when it's nowhere even comparable. Try again Jeffrey!

And no, Paul's primary intent was not to prohibit drunknenness,

Then can we go get drunk tonight so long as we still have the Holy Spirit? Watch that "legalism" now .

it was to point to the Spirit. However, with the dozens of other OT and NT instructions and teachings against drunknenness, it's no question that Paul used the "not this, but this" analogy within his larger argument of "children of the day" and "children of the night" -- which are clearly good and evil contrasts.

Watch out now, you might be called a "Pharisee" for obeying the Word of God!

[B[/COLOR][/B]

See -- context definitely helps.

Yes, context definitely helps......very good Jeffrey.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Here is a word by word transliteration of 1 Peter 3:3-4 from the greek. I used this site to help. http://scripturetext.com/1_peter/3-4.htm

1 Peter 3:3
ων εστω ουχ ο εξωθεν εμπλοκης τριχων και περιθεσεως χρυσιων η ενδυσεως ιματιων κοσμος

1 Peter 3:4
αλλ ο κρυπτος της καρδιας ανθρωπος εν τω αφθαρτω του πραεος και ησυχιου πνευματος ο εστιν ενωπιον του θεου πολυτελες

1 Peter 3:3-4
whose

be thou

not

that

externally

plaiting

hair

and

wearing

gold

rather

putting on

clothes

ADORNING [did you see that word jfrog?]

but(even)

that

inward

one

the heart

man-faced

by

that

uncorruptible

that

mild

and

peacable

mind

which

is

before

the

God

costly
-----------------------

After doing this exercise I am even more convinced that this verse is not a prohibition against jewelry.

So rdp, what was you saying about adorning being right beside clothes/apparel in the greek?

Ughh, yes, it's there...just like I said it was [even highlighted it for you, since you apparently missed it the 1st time!]. Tks. for the help jfrog. I mean, how in the world can you quote it, then deny it????

I, too, can HONESTLY say that I'm just as convinced now as I was before that God is against decorative ornamentation on His children in the NT church economy.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Yes, to a modern context. Paul would remind the women, your real beauty is not those things you "wear" -- like hats, curls in your hair, perfume, fancy pumps, dresses and blouses.... your true beauty is _____.

Yes, I agree. We don't wear watches either. Regarding the color of clothes, I'm personally not crazy about loud colors, but the NT doesn't say "not with colored clothes," but it DOES say "not with gold, pearls, or costly array." I do believe, however, that the reference to "costly" here includes the extravagant/showy.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

rdp is trying to insist that apparel ought to be modified specifically be "adorning". This would have the effect of putting beautiful or costly in front of the word apparel. This would negate our earlier argument that it's not a prohibition because it would be prohibiting clothes if it was. If beautiful/costly was added in front of apparel then the verse could be a prohibition to all those things since it wouldn't be prohibiting clothes in general.

Of course when I made a transliteration of this verse I found something even more amazing. The apparel the verse mentions isn't literal apparel at all, it's totally figurative, and the verse isn't telling us not to wear the apparel it speaks of, it's telling us to wear it because the apparel it speaks of is the kind that covers the heart, an incorruptible, mild/humble and peaceable mind/spirit.

Ahhh, the ol' "Allegorical/Figurative" hermeneutic popularized by Origen. Shame on you jfrog...you should know better!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ughh, yes, it's there...just like I said it was [even highlighted it for you, since you apparently missed it the 1st time!]. Tks. for the help jfrog. I mean, how in the world can you quote it, then deny it????

I, too, can HONESTLY say that I'm just as convinced now as I was before that God is against decorative ornamentation on His children in the NT church economy.

Good I'm glad I got your attention. So, can you make an english sentence out of what I gave you? I'll even give you a great deal of flexibility to add words or even change the orders of those already there. I'll even help you out a little by telling you that the word I translated as rather can also be translated as neither. However, you won't come up with a translation that makes sense in english by keeping adorning/world where it is at in the transliteration. In fact, what I am trying to get at is that UNTIL you make the transliteration into a full fledged english sentence then you have no idea where adorning/world/"kosmos in greek" is actually located in the english sentence.

I'll give a very simple example in spanish since that is what is the only language I have ever taken a class on.

Es un músico bueno.

Transliteration: He is a musician good.
Translation: He is a good musician.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I will try and put this into words that I mean but sometimes that is a problem. So here goes.

I just don't get it. How some do not see what they are doing. But then Jesus did not himself respond to the religious leaders of his day with anything other that the word of God.

That's exactly what I've been quoting...The Word of God!

In its proper context and meaning. He spoke with authority because he was speaking his own words and knew what he ment.

Here is the thing Jesus over and over upbraided the religious leaders for their pious teachings and overly strick usage of the law of Moses. They had defined and redefined the simple commandments of God till they filled up a separate book. Kind of reminds me of the articles of faith of the UPCI, given is a list of standards that are hard put to find anywhere in scripture yet these are given and preached as sin through out the organization.

Ughhh, it comes right out of the Scriptures [I Tim. 2, I Ptr. 3, etc.]. What Bible are YOU reading? And, I suppose that the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. [w/ all of their 'trinity' jargon] can have a manual, but us mean ol' Pentecostals aren't allowed one right?? Silly!

Here is the final point, We are to love and accept those that God has received, even though they do not have as high of standards or have lower standards.

Does God "receive" those who make His Word of no affect?

Paul was not just talking about meat, and the sabbath in this passage.

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

I am going to say this again, that last time I said this I got my head bit off LOL but this is what scripture says.

The weak Christian is the one who put restrictions on what he can do, like eating meat, and keeping the sabboth day.

Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

How is it that we miss this verse, this is the spirit we that have Christ are supposed to have. We that eat meat, allow more liberty to do those things others feel a need to prohibite. Are not to despise the other.

Those of us that put limitations on our walk with God are not to judge the other for God has received them.

Yet we see this everyday the judging of one another and the despising of those that are weaker. All we are doing is showing our true spirit is not of God.
Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations

We are further instructed not to dispute with one another over these issues. I for one want to appoligize for the disputing as God can do more to show his child the error of thier way much better than I can, without causing a brother to fall.

RDP Pray for me as I will pray that you find a closer walk with God than you imagined. and that your eyes will look to our God and creator rather than other christians in judgement.

I appreciate your spirit here & hope that God leads us all to a closer walk in him. I'm not your enemy. Hey, my wife & I are thinking about coming to see Washington state soon...I hear it's breathtaking!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Good I'm glad I got your attention. So, can you make an english sentence out of what I gave you? I'll even give you a great deal of space to add words here or even change the orders of those already there. I'll even help you out a little by telling you that the word I translated as rather can also be translated as neither.

Jfrog, I conducted a study of the various translations [about 10 of the most popular] sometime back. When you put together all of the linguistical scholars on the various committee's [combining, say, the KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCBS, NIV, TAB, etc.] you have about 1000 language experts.

I'm well satisfied w/ the meticulous work that has gone into them as accurate reflections of the greek. If you aren't, then I would simply [& kindly] question your credentials in the greek language to w/stand 1000 experts.

[Jeffrey]

Oh brother...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Jfrog, I conducted a study of the various translations [about 10 of the most popular] sometime back. When you put together all of the linguistical scholars on the various committee's [combining, say, the KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCBS, NIV, TAB, etc.] you have about 1000 language experts.

I'm well satisfied w/ the meticulous work that has gone into them as accurate reflections of the greek. If you aren't, then I would simply [& kindly] question your credentials in the greek language to w/stand 1000 experts.

Yeah, he's got David Bernard, Nate Wilson and Tertullian (love how those names all go into one sentence)

NEWSFLASH: rdp is attempting to appeal to scholarly opinions here!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

rdp, what they are saying is that such expressions can be used EITHER WAY. They are saying that the use is dependent upon the context and not upon the grammar and structure. They even offered some examples of verses with the same basic grammar and structure that couldn't be taken as ban on the "not ______" It is you that is claiming that every use of the word "not ______" must be used the same way, as a prohibition.

No, I fully agree w/ context. But the context of I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2 was the external w/ the internal. The former had a "no" tied to it, while the latter had a "yes" tied to it.

There's much, much more that I could state about NT believers being the dwelling/temple of God, but have gotta' run....probably wouldn't be considered anyway!