Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Sabby]

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are still avoiding my point. It does not matter how many times you responded to Ezek 16, it matters if you are addressing our specific question: WHY WOULD GOD USE AN UNHOLY PICTURE TO ILLUSTRATE A HOLY ACT? You've done everything but directly answer that question.

Type 114 more pages of responses and never actually answer this single and simple question. But do not say you already answered it.


The point is what you think is plainness is incorrect, which is evident in your continued inability to answer this one simple question. Until you can answer this one question, I see no reason to believe your interpretation and alleged plain reading of the NT passages is correct, and nobody has helped me see it your way.

In my estimation GOD WOULD NEVER USE AN UNHOLY PICTURE TO ILLUSTRATE A HOLY THING OR ACT. Sorry, cannot get around that.

So, your interpretation that demands that picture be unholy shows your interpretation of Paul and Peter to be wrong. What you think is plain instruction is wrong. And until you or SOMEONE answers this question, I have not received an answer, and will never accept your idea that Peter and Paul meant what YOU CLAIM they meant. The fact that you are saying everything except the answer to this question shows me your idea of standards is error.

I especially appreciate your comment about a good suit. I know I "get what I pay for", and believe me, I don't buy my suits at WalMart! I'd like to know at what point things become "costly".
I'd also like to know if RDP considers this topic "holiness" preaching.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sabby

I especially appreciate your comment about a good suit. I know I "get what I pay for", and believe me, I don't buy my suits at WalMart! I'd like to know at what point things become "costly".

When something is "costly" in the context the bible speaks of it, it is something that screams costliness. It is worn for the sake of showing off how much it cost and that appearance is intended for that reason, I think.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are still avoiding my point. It does not matter how many times you responded to Ezek 16, it matters if you are addressing our specific question: WHY WOULD GOD USE AN UNHOLY PICTURE TO ILLUSTRATE A HOLY ACT? You've done everything but directly answer that question.

Type 114 more pages of responses and never actually answer this single and simple question. But do not say you already answered it.


The point is what you think is plainness is incorrect, which is evident in your continued inability to answer this one simple question. Until you can answer this one question, I see no reason to believe your interpretation and alleged plain reading of the NT passages is correct, and nobody has helped me see it your way.

In my estimation GOD WOULD NEVER USE AN UNHOLY PICTURE TO ILLUSTRATE A HOLY THING OR ACT. Sorry, cannot get around that.

So, your interpretation that demands that picture be unholy shows your interpretation of Paul and Peter to be wrong. What you think is plain instruction is wrong. And until you or SOMEONE answers this question, I have not received an answer, and will never accept your idea that Peter and Paul meant what YOU CLAIM they meant. The fact that you are saying everything except the answer to this question shows me your idea of standards is error.

Oh brother...are you suuuuuure you're not a closet trinitarian? You use the same debate tactics they do: "You're not answering my question, You're avoiding the question". Hey, if it makes you feel better go right ahead!

Sooooo, let's try this again for Mike. R-E-A-D slowly here: God also used animal sacrifices as an Holy thing [i.e., w/out blemish], yet in the NT you disallow it by your own admission [minus all of your fancy footwork]! So, be consistent Mike & start teaching animal sacrifices for sin...do you dare? I H-A-V-E answered your question by demonstrating your inconsistency & jewelry bias'. Jesus answered questions w/ his own questions....but, I guess you would've stomped your foot at Him too & said, "You're not answering"! Not to mention how many times I've demonstrated that metaphorical verses do NOT override literal NT instructions to the church...such as "N-O-T W-I-T-H G-O-L-D J-E-W-L-R-Y.....". When you're finished wearing out your eraser...it'll still be there! You're a hoot Mike...........

Now, since I've dealt w/ your question [for about the 3rd time now], let's try this again Mike: Since you appeal to Josephus's description [nice appeal OUTSIDE of the text by the way!] of Herod's temple & Ezek. 16...tell us, would you have aproblem w/ a preacher being "decked" out in brilliant stones & plates of gold, w/ a $1,000 suit on, teaching you about "modesty/temperance," Yes or No:__________? If no, then why did you say earlier that I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3 are referring to the "elaborate," then turn around & appeal to Ezek. 16???? If yes, then you're position crumbles by default! It's called "consistency" Mike...oughta' try it out sometime!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

When something is "costly" in the context the bible speaks of it, it is something that screams costliness. It is worn for the sake of showing off how much it cost and that appearance is intended for that reason, I think.

What actual text states this Mike:__________? Oooops...that's right, it's entirely your theology [as demosnstrated in your "I THINK" statement]....not found in the text itself. And, by the way, I buy my suits at Wal-Mart & they've lasted for about 6 years now...so try again Mike. The Bible still forbids "costly apparel"....but, nice job in eisegesis !

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Oh brother...are you suuuuuure you're not a closet trinitarian? You use the same debate tactics they do: "You're not answering my question, You're avoiding the question". Hey, if it makes you feel better go right ahead!

Well if I ask you to answer why God would use an unholy picture to illustrate a holy act, and all you do is ask me about other instances aside from this one, or say we cannot override plain teaching, that means you never answered my actual question. That is no debate tactic./ lol.

Imagine:

DEBATER A: My dear opponent, why do you believe there are aliens?

DEBATER B: Why do you think there are fish in the sea?

DEBATER A: You did not answer my question.

DEBATER B: There you go using debate tactics saying I did not answer your question.

I did not know that addressing your refusal to answer my question saying, "You did not answer my question," was a debate tactic. lol

Sorry. You responded with things I never asked about instead. It is not debate tactic. The debate tactic would be more like what you are doing in avoiding my actual question.

Sooooo, let's try this again for Mike. R-E-A-D slowly here: God also used animal sacrifices as an Holy thing [i.e., w/out blemish], yet in the NT you disallow it by your own admission [minus all of your fancy footwork]!

READING SLOWLY did not help me find your explanation as to why God would use an unholy act to illustrate a holy act. Sorry. I read it ten times, and still could not find your answer.

Do not show me what else God did. Show me why God would use an unholy picture to illustrate a holy thing.

So, be consistent Mike & start teaching animal sacrifices for sin...do you dare?

I answered that issue by showing you your logic fails. Animal sacrifices were ONLY WRONG SINCE THE CROSS, not before. And the CROSS made the difference. You are not saying that about the jewelry.

I H-A-V-E answered your question by demonstrating your inconsistency & jewelry bias'.

You cannot answer my question with some reference to my alleged bias or inconsistency. Answering my question is answering my question. Why would God use an unholy act to illustrate a holy act?

Jesus answered questions w/ his own questions....but, I guess you would've stomped your foot at Him too & said, "You're not answering"!

Just admit you cannot answer it if you can't. When Jesus answered questions with questions, His questions provided the answer they were looking for. You did not do that. Do not compare yourself to Jesus as though asking you questions is like asking Him questions, by the way. lol

Your answers are for questions like, "In what instances does it appear that God used apparent wrongdoing?" That is not asking "Why did God use wrongdoing to illustrate a holy act?"

Not to mention how many times I've demonstrated that metaphorical verses do NOT override literal NT instructions to the church...such as "N-O-T W-I-T-H G-O-L-D J-E-W-L-R-Y.....". When you're finished wearing out your eraser...it'll still be there! You're a hoot Mike...........

Why do you continue to repeat something that does not answer my question? You are only proving my point. It is not whether metaphorical verses override NT instruction or not, but whether or not metaphorical verses contradict NT instructions. The fact is God would not use a metaphor that would conflict with anything taught in the NT. He would not use an unclean picture to illustrate a holy act. That means your interpretation of the NT instruction is not correct, whether you insist you are getting the plain reading or not.

Now, since I've dealt w/ your question [for about the 3rd time now],

You've dealt with it, sure. But without actually answering my question at all. When will you answer it directly? If I ask you for the age of Adam, do not answer me with the age of Methuselah. lol

let's try this again Mike: Since you appeal to Josephus's description [nice appeal OUTSIDE of the text by the way!] of Herod's temple

What do you mean "OUTSIDE OF THE TEXT"? I quoted a historian's account, who quoted Josephus in his writing. It had nothing to do with the question of jewelry. It was written about the temple. It proved you wrong about the temple. So?

...& Ezek. 16...tell us, would you have aproblem w/ a preacher being "decked" out in brilliant stones & plates of gold, w/ a $1,000 suit on, teaching you about "modesty/temperance," Yes or No:__________?

You are leaping through hoops of reasoning in attempts to avoid answering my question. THAT is using debate tactics, which I think are dishonest, personally.

When will you answer why God would use an unholy picture to illustrate a holy act? If I was going all around the issue and asking you all sorts of OTHER questions aside from the one single question you asked, you would be having a royal fit.

So let's waste no more bandwidth and have you answer that ONE SIMPLE QUESTION.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

What actual text states this Mike:__________? Oooops...that's right, it's entirely your theology [as demosnstrated in your "I THINK" statement]....not found in the text itself. And, by the way, I buy my suits at Wal-Mart & they've lasted for about 6 years now...so try again Mike. The Bible still forbids "costly apparel"....but, nice job in eisegesis !

All this from a guy who cannot answer simple question? If you are so strong about the issue why is it that you cannot explain Ezek 16 without saying God used a sinful act to illustrate a holy act, and why you cannot answer why God would do such a thing?

I never saw so much dancing around an issue in my life! Your version of rendering Peter's and Paul's words into something that makes God use an unholy act to illustrate a holy act simply tells me your opinion on anything to do with this issue is ridiculous. So forgive me if I give no credence or merit to your thoughts of the context of what costly apparel means.

Eisegesis is when you continue to stick to your interpretation no matter if it makes God a fool in using an unholy picture to illustrate a holy act. The atrocity of all of that it s at God's expense, rather than your admission of error. (shudder)

None of the examples you used show God using unholy things to illustrate holy acts?

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by rdp

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Oh brother...are you suuuuuure you're not a closet trinitarian? You use the same debate tactics they do: "You're not answering my question, You're avoiding the question". Hey, if it makes you feel better go right ahead!

last time i checked trinitarians were filled by the same God and same Spirit, apostolics are?

[Cindy]

I still like jewelry. It's pretty. I like pretty things. God made the metals and jewels that jewelry is made from, why would He not like it?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by acerrak

last time i checked trinitarians were filled by the same God and same Spirit, apostolics are?

Trinitarians love the same Lord that Oneness people do.
Trinitarians' sins have been washed in the same blood as OP's sins.
The same Jesus lives in Trinitarians as the Holy Spirit that lives in OP's.
OP's and Trinitarians have the same Heavenly Father.
Both Trinitarians and OP's have the same hope of the rapture and Heaven.