Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Sister Alvear]

wonder where the word balance fits in????

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

So according to this, we can parade around naked...right? Or else if we teach modesty, we're suddenly linked to the "pharisees"???? Yawn...you guys should come up w/ some new material after all of these years.

No, you are just being slow enough to miss my point.

You said the outward always reveals what is in the heart. I showed you that is not that case in many lives. That does not mean the harlot should continue dressing like a harlot. But it means you can have a good heart while the outward is messed up and a bad heart with the outward in tip top shape.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

Have you ever heard of the "Fallacy of Equivocation/Non-Sequiter"? You should study into these logical fallacies...you're grossly guilty of them above.

2 Cor. 7 tells us that we should have both inward & outward holiness...not one or the other! Try again Mike.

You again missed it. No one said the harlot should continue looking like a harlot. But you lean towards pharisaism when you make it out that if the heart is right the outward will immediately be right. You do not go into enough detail to show the heart is most important above all. You merely gloss over it. My picture perfectly applies.

Again, though, too bad God did not line up to your standards of holiness by giving his wife earrings and a necklace and bracelet.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In context...

1 Peter 3:3
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

According to your logic, should we also avoid wearing clothing?

Oh brother...here we go again! How many times have I explained the Greek in this passage??????? Simply will not waste my time repeating the same thing over & over, only for you fella's to plod along like you don't see it.

Ever heard of the "Neglected Aspect Fallacy"?? Obviously not......RDP.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No, you are just being slow enough to miss my point.

You said the outward always reveals what is in the heart. I showed you that is not that case in many lives. That does not mean the harlot should continue dressing like a harlot. But it means you can have a good heart while the outward is messed up and a bad heart with the outward in tip top shape.

And you are apparently "slower" than I, since I already referenced you a Scripture that affirms both outward & inward sanctification.

Sheesh...here we go again......

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You again missed it. No one said the harlot should continue looking like a harlot. But you lean towards pharisaism when you make it out that if the heart is right the outward will immediately be right. You do not go into enough detail to show the heart is most important above all. You merely gloss over it. My picture perfectly applies.

Again, though, too bad God did not line up to your standards of holiness by giving his wife earrings and a necklace and bracelet.

And "again" as well, you now take figurative Scriptures & use them override literal condemnation of ornamentation [poor hermeneutics].

But, "again," if you want to make Ezek. [& the other figurative passages] literal, can I now show up for church to preach Sun. morn. "arrayed in fine linen, nose rings, decked in gold, w/ badger's skins on??????

Toooooooooooooooo funny!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

I do not have the text in front of me, but if memory serves me right, it says: "The graven images of THEIR gods, you shall burn with fire. You shall not desire the silver or gold that is on THEM, nor take it for yourself, lest you be snared therein, for it is an abomination to the LORD your God."

Grammatically, the pronoun "them" above relates back to "their" in the earlier portion of the text [which I have in caps above]. Of course the text was dealing w/ the idolatry of the surrounding nations...who manifest that idolatry w/ the wearing of jewelry! That's the whole point that I'm making! Then God says to His people in effect, "You do not mimic the practices & ornamenation of those who aren't in covenant relationship w/ me!"

Jewelry walks hand-in-hand w/ idolatry, & God called the wearing of it an "abomination" to Him! Is what's an "abomination" to Him in the OT still an "abomination" to Him in the NT??? Of course it is....try again Jeffrey.

You clearly are missing the point. Jewlelry does not equal idolatry for all times, all places, all locations anymore than the way idolatry is seen among us today.

This "abomination" crew always has fun with the abominations they choose to

Let's just say, we know, with the continuity of scripture, that what God hates is idolatry. There's no reason to believe he hates precious metals and stones. No need for insertions of grammar and pronouns to try to beef up a flimsey argument.

Do you agree that many objects in culture are symbols. They represent something? Do you also agree that symbols are dynamic, not static, and that they certainly change with time? The symbols change, the idolatry issue doesn't. Based on what you're saying, my wife is in idolatry because she wears a gold wedding band. Step away from the computer and think about how silly that sounds.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Well, I do not believe we can just willfully disregard, or attempt to explain away God-breathed Scripture & be okay w/ God...do you?

I sure don't.

But disregarding is a far cry from applying correcting.

And "explaining away" is a far cry from "explaining."

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

So we take figurative passages & use them to override God's repeated condemnation of the literal wearing of jewlery?? As usual, poor scholarship.

But, if you want to force a literal interpretation into this, can I show up for church Sun. "decked with gold and silver...fine linen, and silk..." w/ "a beautiful crown upon my head, earrings, noserings, badger's skins.....". How consistent will you be????

But while you're in Ezek., how about looking at Chp. 23:40??? Will you apply the same criteria to this passage as the others? I doubt it!

You should really lower your tones and announcements slapping others down for "poor scholarship." Really makes you look like an ass. The stubborn, 4-legged variety of course.

Take away the exclamation marks a second and actually give GD a response. Why the heck would God use a figurative OBJECT that is an abomination (something he hates) to decorate someone he loves with? Think about that smarty pants. The answer may just be the thing he hated was.... drum roll please... IDOLATRY. See how that may answer both scenarios now?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ever hear that the gold & silver was on the INSIDE of the Tabernacle...not the OUTSIDE! Tks. for the help...I forgot about that one!

The OT priests were typological of NT believer's &, more importantly Jesus Christ...who fulfilled the type. When it comes to typology, what they did physically, NT believer's do spiritually. Sorry Sam, try again.

Besides, you've not interacted w/ the various Scriptures that I've presented. You can't explain them, so you simply ignore them & go to something else, which even advances the anti-jewelry messgae further! Tks, for the assistance....rdp.

Uhh... are you forgetting the priest's garments?

And are you confusing your "figurative" and "literal" pet scenarios again?