Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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

Sorry Charlie, my suits are very presentable, but think what you will.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

bump for rdp. What is your opinion?

jfrog, I've explained the Greek in I Ptr. 3 'till I could drop dead! Will not just sit here & repeat the same thing over & over. Go back & reread my former posts regarding I Ptr. 3.

I'm verrrrry busy these days, but try to fit this in where I can. Probably be Thurs. before I can get back to you guys....I own my own company on the side.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

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??

Wow. You do not read do you? I already said that for the time of Ezekiel nose-rings were not considered inappropriate. Did you get it this time? You cannot take something that would look weird now and then find it in the bible and think it is offkey, even though GOD CONDONED IT by saying HE gave it to His lady. You are making God out to be the weirdo here. .

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

I'm astounded at the lengths one will go to in order to nullify the Word of God.

Exactly! You nullify Ezekiel 16!

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!

Yes in deed you are blind. God WOULD NEVER HINT at something associated with evil and what He would not want us to do in anything He said, by figure or otherwise, to show love for His people.

It is useless talking to you since you are THAT blinded by tradition that even God's use of jewelry in a picture of holy love, showing His condoning of it, cannot show you any reason about the issue.

Unbelievable! You make Paul and Peter guys who make God look like a worldly sinner. God have mercy on you, bro. God have mercy. WOW. Read the words of Peter and Paul and realize the bible cannot contradict itself.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by rdp

... 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].

text driven?
a text taken from its context can be used as a pretext

[Sam]

Originally Posted by rdp

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

Well, I'm not Mike but I'll give my personal opinion even if it wasn't asked.

No, I would not have a problem with a woman in the pulpit
and I would not have a problem if she had a nose ring, tongue ring, linen clothing.....

I would not have a problem with a man in the pulpit
and I would not have a problem if he had a nose ring, tongue ring, linen clothing

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

jfrog, I've explained the Greek in I Ptr. 3 'till I could drop dead! Will not just sit here & repeat the same thing over & over. Go back & reread my former posts regarding I Ptr. 3.

I'm verrrrry busy these days, but try to fit this in where I can. Probably be Thurs. before I can get back to you guys....I own my own company on the side.

Since you have nothing to say at all about my argument, other than claiming the Greek adds expensive/fine/beautiful, then I'll declare victory as soon as I'm done showing that this is simply not true.

In fact, we discussed this once before long ago on this very thread. We didn't even have to get into the Greek, we simply had to look at how the passage is translated in various bibles. We found that very few bibles (I think it was 5 from the bible.cc website) translate "apparel" in that verse as being modified by expensive/beautiful/fine. Strong's concordance for the word "apparel" also doesn't list anything more than merely "clothing, apparel, array, raiment, vesture".

So, unless you can offer some reason as to why that verse can mean fine clothes in the greek then we have no reason to believe that it can. Since we currently have no reason to believe that it can refer to what you need it to refer to then I see no reason as to why my argument won't hold.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by rdp

Okay then Mike, neither would God reference Jewelry in connection w/ harlotry if it was soooo pleasing to Him. Why does He repeatedly connect it to harlotry? Will you apply the same criteria to Jer. 4:30, Ezek. 23:40, as you do your other pet verses? I doubt it.

Final analysis: God repeatedly condems the literal ornamentation of His people in both the OT & NT.

Jer 4:1 If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the LORD, return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove.

What was the abominations, the sins of Isreal that God was so upset about? They had left the love of God and turned to the Gods of those around them. There is nothing in the passaged that speaks that the wearing of Gold was thier sin.

Yet you try to take the passage in verse 30 to say that this is thier sin.

Jer 4:30 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.

God tells them thier sin in verse 1. Then God gives them commandment of what to do in verse 3-4 the rest of the context is that Isreal does not repent though God intreats them, instead they try to lean on thier own strength running into thier walled cities. etc. Till finaly God does what he tells them he will do.

Then when they have been spoiled and there is nothing left of thier previous status before God. They then try to get dressed up in thier best, thier former lovers will despise them. and they are left with nothing.

What I see here is more like what some Christians do when they get dressed up in their best to go to church thinking God is pleased with this. When in fact God just wants us to circumcise the forskin of our hearts. All of our finery does not impress God when we have judgment and disputations in our hearts. Whether your finery is a suit and tie, or elaborite hair do. God does not care one way or the other. What he cares about is how we look from the heart.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Exactly! You nullify Ezekiel 16!



Yes in deed you are blind. God WOULD NEVER HINT at something associated with evil and what He would not want us to do in anything He said, by figure or otherwise, to show love for His people.

It is useless talking to you since you are THAT blinded by tradition that even God's use of jewelry in a picture of holy love, showing His condoning of it, cannot show you any reason about the issue.

Unbelievable! You make Paul and Peter guys who make God look like a worldly sinner. God have mercy on you, bro. God have mercy. WOW. Read the words of Peter and Paul and realize the bible cannot contradict itself.

I'm pressed for time today [tommorrow should be better], so let me hurry.

I've already tried to show you that God PERMITTED certain things under the OT, yet He would also periodically show His displeasure for it.

Need proof? Divorce, He allowed [Deut. 24:1-3], but also stated that He "hated divorce" [Mal.]. In the NT, He says "only for the cause of immorality." Polygamy under the OT, but He also said that Kings shouldn't do so [because they would set the tone for the entire nation]. In the NT, I Cor. 7 & I Tim. 3 modifies that to "one wife." In the OT He permitted the taking of life in war, or for familial vengance, though He also says not to murder. In the NT, Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek. While God ALLOWED these things, in actuality, He also uses terms such as "hate" regarding them.

It's the same w/ the ornamental issue Mike. Yes, God allowed it at times [weddings & Rebekah], but also at times showed His strong displeasure for it [Ex. 33, Is. 3 (which, by the way, had nothing to do w/ idolatry or harlotry....only vanity, which still applies!), Hosea 2, Deut. 7:25, etc.].

But in the NT, just as w/ the wives/taking of life/etc., God uses the 2 foremost apostles to simply write "NOT with gold, pearls....", & "NOT....the wearing of gold." What you don't understand is that in many ways the NT is stricter than the OT. We're given more & to whom much is given much is required!

In the OT God simply says, "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not commit adultery." In the NT a man is not to even look upon a woman w/ lust in his heart. In the NT, if you call your brother a fool, or are angry w/ him w/out cause...you're in trouble w/ God! Since we have received MORE from God, there is more expected BY God!

Jewelry walks hand in hand w/ pride [just ask Lucifer & the daughters of Zion in Is. 3], idolatry, etc. By contrast the whore of Babylon was depicted as "decked w/ gold & precious stones & pearls", while the bride of Christ was arrayed simply in clean & white linen.

The contrast is stark, which are you a member of?

Out of pocket 'till 2mmorrow......rdp.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Since you have nothing to say at all about my argument, other than claiming the Greek adds expensive/fine/beautiful, then I'll declare victory as soon as I'm done showing that this is simply not true.

In fact, we discussed this once before long ago on this very thread. We didn't even have to get into the Greek, we simply had to look at how the passage is translated in various bibles. We found that very few bibles (I think it was 5 from the bible.cc website) translate "apparel" in that verse as being modified by expensive/beautiful/fine. Strong's concordance for the word "apparel" also doesn't list anything more than merely "clothing, apparel, array, raiment, vesture".

So, unless you can offer some reason as to why that verse can mean fine clothes in the greek then we have no reason to believe that it can. Since we currently have no reason to believe that it can refer to what you need it to refer to then I see no reason as to why my argument won't hold.

The transliteration of the Greek is actually "apparel ADORNING." The NIV, among others, clearly demonstrates this. Not to mention that the passage is a companion verse w/ I Tim. 2:9, which couldn't be plainer.

As usual, you guys make logical errors. You can't deal w/ "NOT the wearing of gold," so you go to something that you THINK invalidates the rest of the passage??

Gotta' run...busy today...look in tommorrow.