Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Gotta' run....check in later...blessings anyway...rdp.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

No worries Jeffrey...I wouldn't be interested in preaching for you anyway. You'd only explain away the Word of God to fit your lifestyle anyway!

Oh, by the way, the Gospel includes walking in a new, clean way of life [ressurrected after a death to worldliness]....YOU are the one who does understand the Gospel concept of a new life [Ressurrection]!

You couldn't be farther from the truth. But I'll take that. I mean, if I disagree with Jewelry I MUST be a preacher of license. Riiiiiight.

We are a community that is big on discipleship and growing in God, hearing his voice, listening to Him, and receiving His word. We are a community that puts Jesus as the focal point, which in reality, there is no "higher standard" than Matthew 5-7.

The Gospel is implicitly involved in our acting as "new creatures." The Gospel, however, is how and why we are new creatures. So in reality, the good news is that we are no longer slaves to sin. The Gospel was never proclaimed as a "now you must do this." As one friend put it: He who captures grace is one who allows grace to capture his heart & rescue him from the tyranny of self & into the presence of a gracious God. If we forget that grace changes us into His image, we will either settle into some lesser image (lawlessness) or we will forge ahead with our stubbornly-fickle wills, trying to change ourselves into His image through formulas, rules and regulations (legalism). But when we understand God's image of reality (the gospel), grace will begin to empower our lives. The Gospel is a proclamation of the Story of God, and how a gracious God pursued us, found us, loved us and has made an offer of eternal life to us.

Let's not cheapen such a beautiful thing with a debate on jewelry.

I understand as much as is fathomable the reality that is the Gospel, and the new life it offers. I trade my selfishness in for Gospel/Jesus-centeredness. My life now points to the cross. Let's not mince words on the Gospel so you can slip in your legalism.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Good to see that we can finally agree on something. I also believe that we need to look presentable. A $50 suit from Wal-mart does not qualify as "costly".

To who? The majority of the world? So you agree that there is a degree of cultural relativity used to define symbols?

And even if a guy paid $10 for an Armani suit he scored at a thrift store, it's still "costly array." Nor do I think a $50 suit from Walmart is presentable! lol

[mfblume]

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!

Let's try to deal with this effectively together.

Firstly, I was quoting Peter. Secondly, Paul's words to Timothy must be understood with the entirety of scripture, which includes Peter's words on the issue. They are not prohibiting all forms of jewelry since that would contradict the rest of the bible, as I indicated.

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".

Ezekiel can indeed be used to condone Jewelry because, as I already stated, nose rings and badger's skins were not at all considered inappropriate for God to use them as symbols describing His positive love for Israel. You cannot take it from the perspective or OUR DAY and reflect that upon the context. Otherwise, it makes God a buffoon.

God did not do something totally insane. it is obvious that God would use an acceptable means of describing appropriate beauty, and not do something He himself preached against doing. It is flatly illogical to say God used something that is indicative of harlotry in order to show his pure love for Israel. God simply would not dress His bride in manners that would indicate a whore. So you cannot use your argument. It simply stands against all logic and reason.

You claim Rebekka wore jewels in a day when it was okay from God's perspective, but that God changed his mind as though we cannot now handle it since then. You have no bible for that. All that is on your part is an attempt to justify your "standard" in quite a futile manner. This is what happens to man-made tenets. They fail at some point along the way and cannot stand the scrutiny of scripture.

You disregarded the fact that I stated the reasoning you provide about nose rings is flawed. Let me repeat it. IN that day of Ezekiel they were fine. You and I would not have thought anything of it had we lived then and there. But you are comparing cultural changes over millennia later with what occurred then, and acting on pure knee-jerk reactions of people who do not stop to think about this.

Consider this: Adam was given a robe by God! See such a person today walk down Main street and laugh all you want, as anyone today would, but that did not mean God was silly to make a robe for Adam that Adam would not have laughed at whatsoever.

So in short, you are taking a nose ring which was not at all considered "worldly" and "weird" as it is today, and throwing your 21st century perspective on it when it was valid and okay and the NORM for the day of Ezekiel.

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

The fact is the bible HAS IT BOTH WAYS and you actually know it. But you're frustrated because that fact does not fit well with your doctrine. The only sensible conclusion is that jewelry is considered fine and acceptable in some situations and not in others. That means there is a difference of excess, etc. How simpler can it get? We must blind ourselves from the FACT that God condoned jewelry by sheer virtue of the fact He used it in describing what He did in His love for Israel.

So what you SHOULD be saying is that jewelry used in the manner God described it in Ezek 16 is fine!!!! But jewelry used in the manner of harlotry is not fine. there is a difference. Otherwise it makes no sense at all to read Ezekiel 16 and read about Rebekka. To continue to say otherwise is sheer nonsense in light of these facts.

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.

A computer online is FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE than a tv. But you fail to know the reason INTERNET was passed and TV was not. I was there and saw what was stated. It was stated amongst the UPCI that they did not know what was coming when internet was already accepted by most apostolics. Had they known, they would not have allowed it. But 'since it was already in effect after it was too late to stop it, it was said in the ministers magazine, FORWARD, that we have to teach the people to act like Christians and learn how to handle the internet.

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.

Again, the only consistently reasonable conclusion is that there is a marked distinction between jewelry of a harlot and that which is acceptable by God.

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!].

Brother do not grasp here. God condoned jewelry period. Do not make God one who does not practice what he preaches.

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!

Yes, study the Word, since you are missing the right division of it. AT TIMES he condoned AT TIMES He did not. Why? Was He wrong in one of those times? Of course not, but you make it out that He was! The reason WHY is because there is a distinction.

It's so simple to see once you disregard the demand to stick to a doctrine that man concocted. Until you are willing to stand on the bible alone without your standards, you will not see this.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

Then you will have no problem w/ my nose-rings Sun. morn...right Mike??

O' consistency thou art a jewel [not to be worn, of course!

Still ignoring my explanation I see.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

rdp, 1 Peter 3:3 says its just as okay to wear gold as it is to put on apparel.

If 1 Timothy 2:9 is saying it is not okay to wear gold at all, then it is definetly saying that its not as okay to wear gold as it is to put on apparel.

There are only 2 ways out of this contradiction.

1. We can believe that 1 Peter 3:3 is meaning costly apparel instead of any apparel.
2. We can believe that 1 Timothy 2:9 means that broided hair, gold, pearls, costly array are all only as prohibited as putting on any apparel.

These are the only two options. Which one is the better option? I believe that since the whole new testament doesn't focus on the outward person and since jewelry wasn't prohibited in the old testament that option 2 is better and more true to the spirit of Christianity.

bump for rdp. What is your opinion?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You couldn't be farther from the truth. But I'll take that. I mean, if I disagree with Jewelry I MUST be a preacher of license. Riiiiiight.

We are a community that is big on discipleship and growing in God, hearing his voice, listening to Him, and receiving His word. We are a community that puts Jesus as the focal point, which in reality, there is no "higher standard" than Matthew 5-7.

The Gospel is implicitly involved in our acting as "new creatures." The Gospel, however, is how and why we are new creatures. So in reality, the good news is that we are no longer slaves to sin. The Gospel was never proclaimed as a "now you must do this." As one friend put it: He who captures grace is one who allows grace to capture his heart & rescue him from the tyranny of self & into the presence of a gracious God. If we forget that grace changes us into His image, we will either settle into some lesser image (lawlessness) or we will forge ahead with our stubbornly-fickle wills, trying to change ourselves into His image through formulas, rules and regulations (legalism). But when we understand God's image of reality (the gospel), grace will begin to empower our lives. The Gospel is a proclamation of the Story of God, and how a gracious God pursued us, found us, loved us and has made an offer of eternal life to us.

Let's not cheapen such a beautiful thing with a debate on jewelry.

I understand as much as is fathomable the reality that is the Gospel, and the new life it offers. I trade my selfishness in for Gospel/Jesus-centeredness. My life now points to the cross. Let's not mince words on the Gospel so you can slip in your legalism.

Well, if I'm "legal," what does that make you?

And the "voice of God" is found in the Bible, including "not with gold....". Try to work around it all day...it'll still be there when you're finished!

The cross entails a death to the world & it's system! Perhaps you should read the verses that speak of "obedience to the Gospel."

You fella's are selective in what you deem we need to be obedient to!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

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.

Ever heard of "Destructive Criticisms" vs. "Constructive Criticisms"??

I guess God is an enemy of God, since He condoned jewelry. God must be a friend of the world.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Still ignoring my explanation I see.

Still not answering my question I see.

Let's try it again: Mike would you have a problem w/ me having nose rings/tongue rings/fine linen in the pulpit??

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Let's try to deal with this effectively together.

Firstly, I was quoting Peter. Secondly, Paul's words to Timothy must be understood with the entirety of scripture, which includes Peter's words on the issue. They are not prohibiting all forms of jewelry since that would contradict the rest of the bible, as I indicated.



Ezekiel can indeed be used to condone Jewelry because, as I already stated, nose rings and badger's skins were not at all considered inappropriate for God to use them as symbols describing His positive love for Israel. You cannot take it from the perspective or OUR DAY and reflect that upon the context. Otherwise, it makes God a buffoon.

God did not do something totally insane. it is obvious that God would use an acceptable means of describing appropriate beauty, and not do something He himself preached against doing. It is flatly illogical to say God used something that is indicative of harlotry in order to show his pure love for Israel. God simply would not dress His bride in manners that would indicate a whore. So you cannot use your argument. It simply stands against all logic and reason.

You claim Rebekka wore jewels in a day when it was okay from God's perspective, but that God changed his mind as though we cannot now handle it since then. You have no bible for that. All that is on your part is an attempt to justify your "standard" in quite a futile manner. This is what happens to man-made tenets. They fail at some point along the way and cannot stand the scrutiny of scripture.

You disregarded the fact that I stated the reasoning you provide about nose rings is flawed. Let me repeat it. IN that day of Ezekiel they were fine. You and I would not have thought anything of it had we lived then and there. But you are comparing cultural changes over millennia later with what occurred then, and acting on pure knee-jerk reactions of people who do not stop to think about this.

Consider this: Adam was given a robe by God! See such a person today walk down Main street and laugh all you want, as anyone today would, but that did not mean God was silly to make a robe for Adam that Adam would not have laughed at whatsoever.

So in short, you are taking a nose ring which was not at all considered "worldly" and "weird" as it is today, and throwing your 21st century perspective on it when it was valid and okay and the NORM for the day of Ezekiel.



The fact is the bible HAS IT BOTH WAYS and you actually know it. But you're frustrated because that fact does not fit well with your doctrine. The only sensible conclusion is that jewelry is considered fine and acceptable in some situations and not in others. That means there is a difference of excess, etc. How simpler can it get? We must blind ourselves from the FACT that God condoned jewelry by sheer virtue of the fact He used it in describing what He did in His love for Israel.

So what you SHOULD be saying is that jewelry used in the manner God described it in Ezek 16 is fine!!!! But jewelry used in the manner of harlotry is not fine. there is a difference. Otherwise it makes no sense at all to read Ezekiel 16 and read about Rebekka. To continue to say otherwise is sheer nonsense in light of these facts.



A computer online is FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE than a tv. But you fail to know the reason INTERNET was passed and TV was not. I was there and saw what was stated. It was stated amongst the UPCI that they did not know what was coming when internet was already accepted by most apostolics. Had they known, they would not have allowed it. But 'since it was already in effect after it was too late to stop it, it was said in the ministers magazine, FORWARD, that we have to teach the people to act like Christians and learn how to handle the internet.



Again, the only consistently reasonable conclusion is that there is a marked distinction between jewelry of a harlot and that which is acceptable by God.



Brother do not grasp here. God condoned jewelry period. Do not make God one who does not practice what he preaches.



Yes, study the Word, since you are missing the right division of it. AT TIMES he condoned AT TIMES He did not. Why? Was He wrong in one of those times? Of course not, but you make it out that He was! The reason WHY is because there is a distinction.

It's so simple to see once you disregard the demand to stick to a doctrine that man concocted. Until you are willing to stand on the bible alone without your standards, you will not see this.

I'm astounded at the lengths one will go to in order to nullify the Word of God. If we're to put Paul & Ptr. together, then quit saying that I ptr. 3 means that we cannot wear clothes [according to my view]! Remember that bit about "here a little, there a little?" Besides, the NIV couldn't possibly be plainer in this verse.

In the final analysis, Mike uses OT figurative verses simply intended to depict the beauty of God's mercy to erase NT instructions to the church that clearly states "not with gold...."! Then, claims that I'M the one who's "blind!" Good grief!

Tell ya' what Mike...let's try this. Does Paul tell Timothy "not with gold" regarding church order:________? Need some help? Y-E-S! I mean really is this all that hard??

Ughhh, how many times have I now stated that Rebekah was not the temple of God...as NT believer's are! And, that God also allowed polygamy in the OT, yet would at times show his disapproval of it [Deut. 18]...just as He did ornamentation [Ex. 33]. I mean, really, do I have to sit here & repeat this all day???

Regarding my "21st century perspective," first I still need you to answer my question about the nose/tongue rings. Would you be okay w/ me wearing them while preaching? And, what will you do about men's dresses that are being worn in the 21st century...is this now acceptable for Christians also? Of course we have to apply Scripture to our lives in the 21st century. Or perhaps we should apply it to the 18th century??? Absurd. Regarding Adam & what God clothed him in, did God put jewels on him? No sir...so why do you??

YOU are the one who obviously doesn't understand the difference between TV & Internet. There's a huge difference, but I'm pressed for time & cannot handle to voluminous/typical polemics from the liberal crowd. My "frustration" is w/ those who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. When you're thru, it'll still instruct the NT church "not with gold." Put your eraser down Mike...it ain't going nowhere!