Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

You have a paradox here. I am a person whom God shown to interpret as it is stated, not the other way around.

Please explain that statement. It sounds you like you are saying God has shown you how to interpret this passage. Is that what you are saying? If so, you are saying God showed you what you believe, implying anyone else's interpretation is wrong. What kind of discussion can anyone have with you if you believe God showed you how to interpret this? By default you make any conflicting ideas wrong.

True christian character is one that allows the liberty to wear jewelry and interpret Paul and Peter in favor of inward instead of outward adornment and HG conviction to be brainwashing?

This statement is not clear either. Are you saying that you believe it is correct to grant liberty to people to wear jewelry so long as they know inward is more important than outward? Your sentence seems to be missing a word or two, since it is hard to get your point.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

I just listed the text in several translations. How was it in error.

The text is not in error. lol. That is not the point. How many times must I say that God does not contradict Himself by using jewelry as a holy illustration if wearing jewelry is wrong? The context of Paul's and Peter's words must fit with that overall common sense thought.

We can compare the overall Bible. We don't see much stress on christians wearing jewelry in the NT.

You are arguing from silence now. To say the bible does not tell us what they wore is moot. You cannot use absence of description in order to support your doctrine.

We see lots of Jewish believers wearing it in the Old Testament. I don't see an error here and neither should you.

You argue from silence here. That, along with incorrect correlations with the issue and with priestly garments and ideas of humility not spelled out in the bible, and missing the overall point of common sense as I pointed out above, are indications that you are grasping for straws and simply adhering to a tradition regardless of its lack of valid support no matter what you have to say to make it stand.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Please explain that statement. It sounds you like you are saying God has shown you how to interpret this passage. Is that what you are saying? If so, you are saying God showed you what you believe, implying anyone else's interpretation is wrong. What kind of discussion can anyone have with you if you believe God showed you how to interpret this? By default you make any conflicting ideas wrong.
.

My response was to Godsdrummer that it takes God to show a person that jewelry is not wrong. I was responding it was God who convinced me that it is better not to wear jewelry. I'm saying I'm a paradox to him. He said God led him away from believing this way and I'm saying God led me to stay believing this way. Is that more clearer?

Originally Posted by mfblume

This statement is not clear either. Are you saying that you believe it is correct to grant liberty to people to wear jewelry so long as they know inward is more important than outward? Your sentence seems to be missing a word or two, since it is hard to get your point.

Again a response to Godsdrummer that until people are openhearted they will never see the truth about jewelry but will always believe the traditions they are taught. If I remember in other posts he has likened it to brainwashing. My response was so unless people give liberty to the outward in his view, they are brainwashed and that the conviction they say they have is not true conviction of God? It was a question. Again its really heard to articulate the meaning of a statement (at least for me) on a forum when you are talking to multiple people while responding to a single person on their post

[onefaith2]

[QUOTE=mfblume;992908]The text is not in error. lol. That is not the point. How many times must I say that God does not contradict Himself by using jewelry as a holy illustration if wearing jewelry is wrong? The context of Paul's and Peter's words must fit with that overall common sense thought.
/QUOTE]
How is God contradicting himself? In the new convenant ladies are exhorted to adorn the heart rather than the outward. How does that contradict God?

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are arguing from silence now. To say the bible does not tell us what they wore is moot. You cannot use absence of description in order to support your doctrine.
.

If jewelry wearing was so important and a non issue, how come we only have scripture saying a Lady should refrain from outward adorning in order to adorn the heart. We don't have any scripture that says if they wore it or not but it would indicate they did wear jewelry, based on Paul and Peter's exhortation for them to adorn the heart, rather then the outward. Another words it did'nt seem to be an issue till the writing of the epistles..

Originally Posted by mfblume

You argue from silence here. That, along with incorrect correlations with the issue and with priestly garments and ideas of humility not spelled out in the bible, and missing the overall point of common sense as I pointed out above, are indications that you are grasping for straws and simply adhering to a tradition regardless of its lack of valid support no matter what you have to say to make it stand.

In your eyes my HG conviction is a straw argument and has no sense whatever. Thanks Mike, I now know that the voice of God I have yearned to hear and heard for a while now is a fake

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

My response was to Godsdrummer that it takes God to show a person that jewelry is not wrong. I was responding it was God who convinced me that it is better not to wear jewelry. I'm saying I'm a paradox to him. He said God led him away from believing this way and I'm saying God led me to stay believing this way. Is that more clearer?

Yes that is more clear. Thanks. My only advice is to remain open in case it was not God but tradition that made you mistake it for God. Just in case...

Again a response to Godsdrummer that until people are openhearted they will never see the truth about jewelry but will always believe the traditions they are taught.

Agreed. But by the same token you need to be open hearted just in case itr WAS tradition on your behalf and not God.

If I remember in other posts he has likened it to brainwashing. My response was so unless people give liberty to the outward in his view, they are brainwashed and that the conviction they say they have is not true conviction of God? It was a question. Again its really heard to articulate the meaning of a statement (at least for me) on a forum when you are talking to multiple people while responding to a single person on their post

I agree it is hard.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

How is God contradicting himself? In the new convenant ladies are exhorted to adorn the heart rather than the outward. How does that contradict God?

Adorning the heart RATHER THAN the outward is not contradictory to using jewelry as a holy illustration. I never said it was. But what IS contradictory is saying wearing jewelry is sin or jewelry is forbidden when God used it as a holy illustration. In other words, the "rather" point is fine! Great! Just do not forbid it and nor say it is sin.

If jewelry wearing was so important and a non issue, how come we only have scripture saying a Lady should refrain from outward adorning in order to adorn the heart.

That is the point, we have lots more scripture showing jewelry in a favourable light. EVERYBODY believes the inward is RATHER our focus than the outward. And that is what Peter and Paul stated. But that is not the debate. The debate is whether it is forbidden or is sin.

We don't have any scripture that says if they wore it or not but it would indicate they did wear jewelry, based on Paul and Peter's exhortation for them to adorn the heart, rather then the outward. Another words it did'nt seem to be an issue till the writing of the epistles..

the point is I still say you are putting an issue where there really never was an issue to begin or to end with! That is, the issue of jewelry being wrong. It does not say it is wrong to wear it. It just says "RATHER" stress the inward.

In your eyes my HG conviction is a straw argument and has no sense whatever. Thanks Mike, I now know that the voice of God I have yearned to hear and heard for a while now is a fake

Believe what you want, but you are changing the issue when the entire issue is whether or not jewelry is forbidden today. You have to stand before God with your convictions, not me. So have at it! That was not the issue either, though.

I never said your conviction is a strawman argument either, by the way. I said your explanations are strawman arguments, like the first phrase you made in this post. No one said adorning the heart RATHER than the outward was the problem. It's claiming that means never wear jewelry that is the problem.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Adorning the heart RATHER THAN the outward is not contradictory to using jewelry as a holy illustration. I never said it was. But what IS contradictory is saying wearing jewelry is sin or jewelry is forbidden when God used it as a holy illustration. In other words, the "rather" point is fine! Great! Just do not forbid it and nor say it is sin.

.

Do you interpret the word rather to mean in place of?

9likewise also(A) that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,

9I would like for women to wear modest and sensible clothes. They should not have fancy hairdos, or wear expensive clothes, or put on jewelry made of gold or pearls.

9 Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, (A) with decency and good sense; not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, (B) pearls, or expensive apparel,

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is the point, we have lots more scripture showing jewelry in a favourable light. EVERYBODY believes the inward is RATHER our focus than the outward. And that is what Peter and Paul stated. But that is not the debate. The debate is whether it is forbidden or is sin.

.

I'm not calling it forbidden or sin. I'm calling it advised against. Am I on the wrong forum thread then?

Originally Posted by mfblume

the point is I still say you are putting an issue where there really never was an issue to begin or to end with! That is, the issue of jewelry being wrong. It does not say it is wrong to wear it. It just says "RATHER" stress the inward.
.

Again how do you teach what the word rather means? The above versions I listed do not concur with what I think you are meaning (Ladies you can wear jewelry but make sure you focus on the heart more, because that is what matters most)

Originally Posted by mfblume

Believe what you want, but you are changing the issue when the entire issue is whether or not jewelry is forbidden today. You have to stand before God with your convictions, not me. So have at it! That was not the issue either, though.

I never said your conviction is a strawman argument either, by the way. I said your explanations are strawman arguments, like the first phrase you made in this post. No one said adorning the heart RATHER than the outward was the problem. It's claiming that means never wear jewelry that is the problem.

I may be arguing something this thread is not pertaining to. If my convictions are such and such and the argument is a strawman, what are you suggesting? That I am mistaken as to why the convictions are what they are?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Do you interpret the word rather to mean in place of?

No. "In favour over."

I'm not calling it forbidden or sin. I'm calling it advised against. Am I on the wrong forum thread then?

Yes you may be on the wrong thread, then. No one said it is not advised against, but the argument is that it is forbidden or is sin.

Again how do you teach what the word rather means? The above versions I listed do not concur with what I think you are meaning (Ladies you can wear jewelry but make sure you focus on the heart more, because that is what matters most)

Now it seems you are saying it is forbidden again! Which is it?

I may be arguing something this thread is not pertaining to. If my convictions are such and such and the argument is a strawman, what are you suggesting? That I am mistaken as to why the convictions are what they are?

I am only saying the bible does not teach wearing jewelry is wrong, a sin or forbidden. I said that over and over again.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No. "In favour over."



Yes you may be on the wrong thread, then. No one said it is not advised against, but the argument is that it is forbidden or is sin.


Now it seems you are saying it is forbidden again! Which is it?



I am only saying the bible does not teach wearing jewelry is wrong, a sin or forbidden. I said that over and over again.

No i am saying he is stating advised against.. When you advise against something, you are not forbidding it but exhorting to not partake in it for the sake of another.

To me that is what paul and peter are saying.

I believe the Bible is teaching ladies that wearing jewelry is the wrong choice because it can take the place of adorning the heart. Not because wearing jewelry is a sin or the disobedience of this verse is sin; but Paul and Peter both stress ladies to adorn themselves inward rather than outward. In fact the outward is exhorted to be modest and plain according to some translations, with holding gold, pearls, or costly array.

Now if Paul or Peter advises against something, it behooves pastors and teachers to do the same. I don't buy the belief wear this and you are going to hell.

I do buy the belief we should practice modesty so that we may adorn the heart, rather or instead of the outward.

It becomes christian duty then to listen to what the verses are saying. I believe its wrong to ignore the exhortation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

No i am saying he is stating advised against.. When you advise against something, you are not forbidding it but exhorting to not partake in it for the sake of another.

To me that is what paul and peter are saying.

I believe the Bible is teaching ladies that wearing jewelry is the wrong choice because it can take the place of adorning the heart. Not because wearing jewelry is a sin or the disobedience of this verse is sin; but Paul and Peter both stress ladies to adorn themselves inward rather than outward. In fact the outward is exhorted to be modest and plain according to some translations, with holding gold, pearls, or costly array.

Now if Paul or Peter advises against something, it behooves pastors and teachers to do the same. I don't buy the belief wear this and you are going to hell.

I do buy the belief we should practice modesty so that we may adorn the heart, rather or instead of the outward.

It becomes christian duty then to listen to what the verses are saying. I believe its wrong to ignore the exhortation.

It is always wrong to ignore the exhortation. But what the exhortation is saying is another thing.

In short, and I have said this over and over, it is not saying it is wrong to wear jewelry and is not saying women are advised against wearing it at all. Otherwise God contradicted His own word. Anyway, we will only repeat ourselves at this point.