Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by rdp

Not at all...[for about 3 pages now!].

Was Lucifer the dwelling place/temple of God:___________? Therein lies your inconsistent dilemma.

C'mon, surely at least ONE of you can fill in this blank! I just know you can..................

Weak defense. God adorned him with the jewels. Why would adorn him something vain and sinful???

[Truthseeker]

Interesting definition of ornaments in Ex 33:


`adiy

OT:5716 `adiy (ad-ee'); from OT:5710 in the sense of trappings; finery; generally an outfit; specifically, a headstall:







Could it be ornaments were more then jewelry? If so, should we be putting off our adorning ties/colorful dress so God may know what to do with us??

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Speaking of "entertaining," you show your typical ignorance here by not comprehending that I was pointing out that God also created mankind, who sinned.

So, according to the liberal agenda/logic, we should also partake of man's sins because God is the One who created humanity? God put jewels on Lucifer, which later has a "Not with gold, pearls,..." tied to it. God created humanity, who later sinned. You partake of the former [in the face of clear instructions otherwise], & yet reject the latter...then wanna' talk to ME about "fallacies" ???????????????

You make no sense, RDP!

Our very point was that there is no textual proof to suggest Lucifer's jewels were a violation against God. It is said in a rather complimentarian way, including the description of musical abilities and glory. God creating man who LATER sinned is completely irrevelant. You're trying to stretch an Oprah-sized point onto a Leonardo DiCaprio body

Interpreting Ezekiel has nothing to do with taking the argument back to Timothy or Peter. Ezekiel wrote independently of them (and as you know, we've spent considerable time arguing a contrary position to yours on those references as well). You tried to pot shot this point in a drive-by, shoot-from-the-hip fashion, so let's stick to the Ezekiel passagem (one of many scriptures I listed where jewelry was spoken of positively).

You almost assume Lucifer was in sin when he was described by Ezekiel. Of course, you MUST stretch that point to conform to your later point (I believe you understand the word "eisegesis"). Unfortunately, your case is without any merit.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Yes, I make "no sense" to you because "the carnal mind is enmity with God." I'm trying to pour water [spiritual things] on a rock [Jeffrey's carnal mind]. Now, to your silly arguments above......

In the first place, I like your "presumption" concession! Hey, Jeffrey, little lesson here: We do not make our doctrinal stances on "Presumptions" !

Secondly, & for about the 3rd time now, Lucifer was not the temple of God, as we are in the NT. Thirdly [man, you're too easy], beauty is not condemned elsewhere in Scripture as decorative ornamentation is [Deut. 7:25, Is. 3, Ex. 33, I Tim. 2, I Ptr. 3, etc.].

Put your eraser down Jeffrey, I Tim. 2 will still be there in eternity...which you'll be judged by.

Oh please! What self-righteous bologna. What a lame and illogical rebuttal. "My argument and my opinion only make sense to those who are spiritual." Sounds desperate to me.

None of your cutesy rebuttals even got close to being a legit rebuttal. Quit interpreting Ezekiel with all the other ........ in your mind (eisegesis). Temple of God or not, if it was something disapproved by God, it wouldn't be a uniform worn in heaven.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by rdp

....remember WWJD? He didn't wear jewelry!

How do we know if Jesus did or did not wear jewelry?
The Bible is silent on this.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Weak defense. God adorned him with the jewels. Why would adorn him something vain and sinful???

If my defense is weak, what kind of offense is appealing to Lucifer for your doctrinal support?????

I'll just assume that you cannot fill in the blank as to whether or not Lucifer was the temple of God...since you haven't done it in the last 4 pages!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Interesting definition of ornaments in Ex 33:


`adiy

OT:5716 `adiy (ad-ee'); from OT:5710 in the sense of trappings; finery; generally an outfit; specifically, a headstall:







Could it be ornaments were more then jewelry? If so, should we be putting off our adorning ties/colorful dress so God may know what to do with us??

Are you aware that the topic of this thread is jewelry...not ties?!?! And, for about the 15th time now, I'll asert [to no avail, no doubt] that I'm not a fan of extravagant clothing attire, as it violates the principle of outward holiness, as does ornamentation on God's temple.

Sheesh, you fella's just refuse to get it eh'.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You make no sense, RDP!

Ad Hominem attacks do not serve as "evidence." Moving right along.....

Our very point was that there is no textual proof to suggest Lucifer's jewels were a violation against God. It is said in a rather complimentarian way, including the description of musical abilities and glory. God creating man who LATER sinned is completely irrevelant. You're trying to stretch an Oprah-sized point onto a Leonardo DiCaprio body

Sorry Charlie, there certainly is textual proof that Lucifer's ornaments played a part in his fall...why else did the Holy Spirit take the time to enumerate them in describing his fall. Musical abilities are not condemned else where in the Bible as is Jewelry on God's people. Try again Jeffrey.....

Interpreting Ezekiel has nothing to do with taking the argument back to Timothy or Peter.

Hmmm, then why has a majority of this thread included a discussion of Ezek. 16?????? Man, you're toooooo easy!


Ezekiel wrote independently of them (and as you know, we've spent considerable time arguing a contrary position to yours on those references as well). You tried to pot shot this point in a drive-by, shoot-from-the-hip fashion, so let's stick to the Ezekiel passagem (one of many scriptures I listed where jewelry was spoken of positively).

And fine linen, nose rings, etc. were also mentioned "positively," so I suppose that I can head down to the most extravagant, costly suit shop in town & now spend &1,000 on suit for church, along w/ my nose ring, lip ring, tongue ring, spiked hair, etc.....Plumb ridiculous!

You almost assume Lucifer was in sin when he was described by Ezekiel. Of course, you MUST stretch that point to conform to your later point (I believe you understand the word "eisegesis"). Unfortunately, your case is without any merit.

"Not with gold jewelry, pearls, or costly apparel." [NLT]. Sorry friend, denial is not evidence. I have all "the merit" in the world...it's called the Bible. You oughta' check it out sometime......

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Oh please! What self-righteous bologna. What a lame and illogical rebuttal. "My argument and my opinion only make sense to those who are spiritual." Sounds desperate to me.

You cannot comprehend me above, just as you apparently need a tutor to comprehend "Not with gold jewelry, pearls, or costly clothing." You're a hoot!

None of your cutesy rebuttals even got close to being a legit rebuttal. Quit interpreting Ezekiel with all the other ........ in your mind (eisegesis). Temple of God or not, if it was something disapproved by God, it wouldn't be a uniform worn in heaven.

There was also rebellion "in heaven" by the angels; I suppose, according to your tortured eisegesis of I Tim. 2, that's whom you take your cue from.

So, according to your post above, it's of NOOOOO significance that the NT church is the temple of God??? Man, you have muuuuuch to learn. Perhaps, you should read David Norris' "I AM" book that he recently put out. It blows your theory concerning the NT temple to bits using contemporary scholarship. But, you probably wouldn't understand it either, if you somehow cannot comprehend "Not with gold jewelry....".

Sheesh, what's wrong w/ you guys???????

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sam

How do we know if Jesus did or did not wear jewelry?
The Bible is silent on this.

He was an Orthodox, Torah observant Jew [go study them out Sam]....yet also God enfleshed.