Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

I see, you attack me off of your muddied perceptions [strawman fallacy], & expect me to defend it?? I've NEVER referred to myself as a "scholar, or exegete." YOU supplied that, not me Jeffrey. Thus, you assume what you cannot prove!

Regarding Jer. 4, what has happenned to your theory about figurative verses & sinful symbols over in Ezek. 16? Hmmm, you don't apply the same criteria here do you? And part of what the audience would recognize as harlotry was make-up & jewelry! Tks. for the help!

No, I do not think that every woman who wears make-up & jewelry is a harlot. My point was that figurative verses can cut either way [for about the 3rd time now]. But we do see God repeatedly condemning the wearing of jewelry by His people. Are you guys denying that:________?

Remember, the OT was physical in nature, while the NT is spiritual in nature. Thus, the idolatry in the OT, which was repeatedly connected to jewelry, is now done in the heart/spiritually, which is apparently still connected to jewelry from the way you guys fight it so hard!

Still waiting on you to deal w/ I Tim. 2:9, "N-O-T with gold...".

Oh, you've announced yourself as such many times We can hear you loud and clear.

Your point about "figurative verses can cut either way" does nothing more but prove the point many of us are trying to make. They do "cut both ways," if that's the way you like to put it. I have no issues with that either! Our goal is to hear the message and apply the message. You are zooming in on a piece of the story that you are reading without any consideration of the "figurative" or the context. Your treatment of these OT texts is either woefully dishonest or ignorant. But there's really not another option. Can you find an exegesis of those texts from a worthy scholar that supports your position? I would love to read it.

Your bologna about the OT being physical and NT being spiritual really doesn't help your NT proof-texts much. I'd just avoid going down that road if I were you. The OT is part of the same story, just as literal at times, figurative at others, along with it's highly spiritual moments.

If you read back a few threads, I responded to your 1 Tim 2:9 argument. You decided to ignore that. Remember when I talked about the word "not" as something pointing to a "this, not that" context?

If you read this from v8, he appeals to men at their pride issue, and specifically fighting and arguing. To women, he includes them in this humility charge, tells them their beauty doesn't come from primping in the mirror, chasing the latest fads but from doing something beautiful for God and becoming beautiful doing it. Don't miss the forest for the trees, RDP. The "not" is an indicator that the apostle is making a comparison, a contrast, he's setting up a "for example." To take from that a strict prohibitionist's view does a great disservice to his message.

Expensive clothes, fancy hairdos and overdone jewled up clothing is all mentioned here. This takes us back even to Corinth where the rich Christians would go to the assembly parading their social status (very common for the time) -- it is perhaps acknowledged that Paul may have been dealing with that. Not creating a list of rules of prohibitions, but pointing to "true beauty" and "true humility." That's the Gospel way after all.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

I see, you can make very unchristian innuendo's [head where it shouldn't be], call me "phony," etc.....then correct ME on my responses???? Sounds to me like someone can dish it out, but.... Toooo funny.

You folks need to understand that I do not function according to your whims. I'm text driven & could care less about your silly little ad hominem attacks [need me to explain that one too Jeffrey??]. I maen for a people who apparently cannot comprehend the phrase "not with gold," you sure aren't operating too "smooth" yourselves.

Sorry Jeffrey, try again, this time w/ Scripture [novel idea].

We've interacted plenty with your proof-texts, buddy.

If you don't like the word "phony" then quit trying to break down someone's argument with "official fallacies." The fact is, you are pulling these out of you know what... hoping they stick. So receive that not as a "personal attack" but as a direct attack on your argumentation.

Only someone like you would keep repeating a "phrase" in the middle of a verse without putting it in its context. I mean, I could do that all night with scripture and if that's the argumentation you buy, I could have you all mixed up!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Wrong again Jeffrey! In fact, I sincerely pray all of the time that if I'm wrong, I want God to show me. I'm well aware that if I teach others wrong, I'll give an account of it.

But, I just cannot erase the Word of God regarding women preachers, jewelry, etc. His Word is what will judge me...not AFF!

Let's put down your complimentarian arguments for just a moment (I may agree a lot more with you on that than you probably think, but neither do I think it's a reason for division nor is a "gospel issue.")

When you use the Word of God as a book of moral rules, you miss the entire beauty and you come up chasing allusions in places where nothing exists. When you seek to codify everything as a prohibition, you can certainly leave with a basket full of things, but never even grasp for a moment the beauty of the Gospel message in the Text. Can you tell me, for example, what Timothy's overall encouragement in this Text is? Do you even see it as encouragement? As exhortation?

Before "his Word" judges us, our own heart condemns us. People I've found so consumed with these issues often play a slight of hand, keeping the attention away from their own heart.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ho-Hum...here we go again. Mike, would you have aproblem if I showed up Sun. morn. to preach in your church wearing nose rings, decked in jewels, fine linen, badger's skins etc.? If yes, then drop the age old argument from Ezek. 16...since God will not "use sinful analogies." Then you should have no problem w/ my wearing these articles! If no, then you bigger problems than liberalism!

My original point was, & still is, that the 2 foremost NT apostles state in very clear terms that the wearing of gold, pearls, [i.e., jewelry] should not be practiced. Paul explicitly states "not with gold...." I mean really, what in the world can you fella's not understand about that? Ever heard of "Destructive Criticisms" vs. "Constructive Criticisms"??

Even in the OT God repeatedly demonstrates His displeasure w/ it ["put OFF (not ON) your ornaments...", Ex.33, Is. 3, Hosea 2, Jer. 4, Ezek.23, Gen. 35,etc.]. Yet, you fella's just plod along like it's not there, & when you do address it, you have your eraser out "making the Word of God of no effect."

Sorry Charlie...ain't buying it!

You still haven't dealt with the scripture, rdp, other than some extreme example of something you think is sinful.

And no one has an eraser out -- we have our feelers out, heart open grasping The Message. Oh, and dozens of Bible geeks have had their "exegesis out" as well.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Yes, my point exactly, what motivates anyone today to paint their face, adorn themselves in jewels, etc.? Besides, regardless the motivation, the Bible still instructs the NT church "NOT with gold...". Try again!

I'll just play your game back and say "braided hair" over and over and over and over again, and leave thinking I'm smart.

What part of "braided hair" don't you understand? I don't want your explanations! It's scripture! It's Bible!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Have You drop labels for manners of argument like a pendantic nerd drops complicated phraseology, or an attention-seeker drops famous names.

EXACTLY!!!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

Yes, my point exactly, what motivates anyone today to paint their face, adorn themselves in jewels, etc.? Besides, regardless the motivation, the Bible still instructs the NT church "NOT with gold...". Try again!

Let's take this one step at a time.

The answer to that question of why someone would wear jewelry and makeup is obvious and is given in Jeremiah 4:30. The answer is that women wear jewelry and makeup to appear fair/beautiful.

The real question is what motivates a woman to want to appear fair/beautiful? Does she want to appear fair/beautiful for the same reasons that a harlot does (to attract men for the purpose of sex)? Or does she want to appear fair/beautiful for other reasons?

[mfblume]

Right, j. That makes the issue sensible in light of the FACT that the bible shows GOD CONDONING jewelry in Ezek 16. USES of something in a negative way stand alongside OTHER uses of the same thing in a positive way. We have to blind ourselves to not see that.

Ezek 16 is the absolute bane of the standard that demands no jewelry. Slam-dunk!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You really cannot answer Ezekiel 16, can you? Just jabs.

The point is that IN THAT TIME there was nothing WRONG with nose rings and badger's skins, and these things were innocent enough THAT GOD USED THEIR IMAGERY TO EXPLAIN HIS LOVE FOR HIS PEOPLE.

You cannot even reason with this adequately to realize that you are making God into a nutcase who should not have used nose rings and badger's skins to describe how he cherished Jerusalem, since in OUR DAY these things would be ridiculous.

The issue is that God condoned jewelry in some uses and not in others -- period. The only way anyone can argue that is that they scrape for straws to hang onto to not change their doctrinal stance. I have not seen one single reasonable statement you made about the entire issue so far.

GOD CONDONED JEWELRY in Ezekiel 16. You cannot remove that one from the bible. In Jer 4:30, God did not CASTIGATE wearing of jewelry, but rather foretold judgment on a nation who would try to regain respect and other lovers in futility.

Jer 4:30 KJV And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.

The gist is "How will you be able to help yourself after you are spoiled?" And then he listed all the attempts the nation might accomplish to help itself. He spoke of looking noble and wealthy and rich with jewelry and trying to gain self dignity. Her lovers are mentioned which indicates attempts at luring through lust the attention of others. But though harlots wore jewelry, others who were not harlots did as well. Otherwise it is insane to see God using jewelry for His bride in symbolism. It would make Him appear as lusting after harlots. You need to, therefore, watch what you say about this issue.

I used to agree with you. But passages like Ezekiel 16 poked at me again and again, and I had to admit I was taught wrong. IN SOME CASES -- those of excess -- jewelry is linked to harlotry. But just because a harlot also combs her hair and uses a bed, does that mean it is wrong for other women to comb their hair and have beds for purposes other than harlotry? The point is EXCESS is the error. Uses of things can be error. Focus upon those things is the error. Moderation of those same things frees one from any inkling of harlotry. CONTEXT MEANS EVERYTHING!

And you better get off the internet, because some people use internet for porn. But I suppose TV is more evil than the internet although internet has driven more men into porn since the inception of the net long after TV touched a relatively MINOR area of sin by comparison. Consistency thou art a rare jewel when it comes to men standing for doctrines that make no lick of sense when closely analyzed!

Eze 23:40 KJV And furthermore, that ye have sent for men to come from far, unto whom a messenger was sent; and, lo, they came: for whom thou didst wash thyself, paintedst thy eyes, and deckedst thyself with ornaments,

Another example where harlotry is associated with jewelry IN SPECIFIC USES OF IT involving EXCESS and intention to adulterate. This no more convinces anyone that ALL FORMS OF jewelry are likewise intended and cannot be implemented outside of such excesses and intentions. OTHERWISE EZEKIEL 16 WOULD NOT BE IN THE BIBLE! Why can you not see that?



No it does not say that. It says the FOCUS and the ADORNMENT which in the Greek is implying KOSMOS, WORLD -- one's WORLD -- should not be these things. IN other words, wear it, but do not make it the focus of what one thinks is the greatest attribute one could have, as though a meek spirit is nothing in contrast. THAT is what it is saying. How do I know? The rest of the bible CONDONES IT. And the only way you can stand reasonably on your position is to concoct some make-believe scripture that says God allowed it at first, but later realized man could not handle it. And meanwhile NO SUCH VERSE EXISTS. And you misread the apostles' words to make them contradict the rest of the bible.



It also says not "the wearing of apparel." How many times have people told you that? The obvious explanation is speaking of apparel as one's whole world and focus of desire in order to promote self. But wearing apparel is innocent in and of itself otherwise. You do not get the idea of moderation and putting focus where focus should be.

According to you, we should be naked to be consistent with your use of the phrases used in those verses.



You drop labels for manners of argument like a pendantic nerd drops complicated phraseology, or an attention-seeker drops famous names.


And IT ALSO SHOWS GOD'S APPROVAL OF IT as in Ezekiel 16 and Rebekka's case with Isaac, as well as Daniel accepting a gold necklace and the prodigal son being given a golden ring.

We have to look AT ALL the instances, and not only look at the negative ones, and THEN make a reasonable assessment. You gloss over all jewelry and make God a whoremonger like you do with every other man who does not mind his wife wearing jewelry..



I explained it fully! You are the one who cannot answer Ezekiel 16 LIKE IT IS NOT THERE. You plod along like passage after passage is not there, as though the mention of a harlots bed means no one should ever sleep in a bed when used for other reasons than harlotry, simply because the bible stated harlots used beds.



Then cut out Ezekiel 16. Chop it out.



No one can make you agree with reason. And if you're that stuck on a doctrine that no amount of reason can sway you, then you actually are committing spiritual fornication against God for loving a man-made error of doctrine more than His precious truth.

Think, man.

Oh brother...where to begin? What's absolutely astounding is your eisegesical handling of I Tim. 2. You state, "in other words, wear it...." S-A-Y W-H-A-T???? What Bible are you reading? Where does I Tim. 2:9 say, "wear it":_________? Clue Mike: You cannot just make-up your own Bible as Thomas Jefferson did!

How many times have I showed that your pet verse in Ezek. 16 cannot be used to condone personal ornamentation, no more than it can be used to condone me wearing nose rings & fine lines! YOU are the one who needs to "think".

Well, God also used the imagery of jewels to depict His people an immoral woman. You can't have it both ways Mike!

And yes, TV is definitely evil & no child of God should own one in their home, but it takes a spiritual mind to understand this. O', I know this flies in the face of the politically correct "apostolics" of the day...how dare anyone call them to separation from the world.

Regarding Rebekah [while you're quoting from Gen., try looking at chp. 35:1-5!], is that mankind was not the temple of God at this point. But, in the NT, we're explicitly told "N-O-T with gold..." What part of "not" do you "not" understand? I've explained the greek ad nauseum regarding I Ptr. 3. How about looking at the NIV transaltion of I Ptr. 3 for starters.

God also allowed polygamy under the OT...how many wives do you have Mike [watch out you might qualify as a "legalist" for obeying the Word!]. But, he also showed His displeasure w/ it periodically. Same w/ the literal ornamentation of His people [Ex. 33, Hos. 2, Jer. 4, Ezek. 23, Deut. 7:25, Is. 3, etc.]. You cannot just sweep these multitude of passages under the rug [remember that bit about 'chopping out' the Word?]...at least not to me. Think I'll stick w/ the Word of God!

And, yes, I'm aware that you backslid away from the truth into worldliness. "....if any man LOVE the WORLD, the love of the Father is NOT in him." "Whosoever, therefore, will be a friend of the WORLD, is the ENEMY of God." Honestly & sincerely, it's very sad.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Oh brother...where to begin? What's absolutely astounding is your eisegesical handling of I Tim. 2. You state, "in other words, wear it...." S-A-Y W-H-A-T???? What Bible are you reading? Where does I Tim. 2:9 say, "wear it":_________? Clue Mike: You cannot just make-up your own Bible as Thomas Jefferson did!

How many times have I showed that your pet verse in Ezek. 16 cannot be used to condone personal ornamentation, no more than it can be used to condone me wearing nose rings & fine lines! YOU are the one who needs to "think".

Well, God also used the imagery of jewels to depict His people an immoral woman. You can't have it both ways Mike!

And yes, TV is definitely evil & no child of God should own one in their home, but it takes a spiritual mind to understand this. O', I know this flies in the face of the politically correct "apostolics" of the day...how dare anyone call them to separation from the world.

Regarding Rebekah [while you're quoting from Gen., try looking at chp. 35:1-5!], is that mankind was not the temple of God at this point. But, in the NT, we're explicitly told "N-O-T with gold..." What part of "not" do you "not" understand? I've explained the greek ad nauseum regarding I Ptr. 3. How about looking at the NIV transaltion of I Ptr. 3 for starters.

God also allowed polygamy under the OT...how many wives do you have Mike [watch out you might qualify as a "legalist" for obeying the Word!]. But, he also showed His displeasure w/ it periodically. Same w/ the literal ornamentation of His people [Ex. 33, Hos. 2, Jer. 4, Ezek. 23, Deut. 7:25, Is. 3, etc.]. You cannot just sweep these multitude of passages under the rug [remember that bit about 'chopping out' the Word?]...at least not to me. Think I'll stick w/ the Word of God!

And, yes, I'm aware that you backslid away from the truth into worldliness. "....if any man LOVE the WORLD, the love of the Father is NOT in him." "Whosoever, therefore, will be a friend of the WORLD, is the ENEMY of God." Honestly & sincerely, it's very sad.

Wait a minute! You side-step the OT usage of jewelry because "we are not yet the temple of God" (nevermind that we are in His image and you claim his abhors jewlery, hates it, and use OT scripture to support that)? Come again???