Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Cindy]

Can't we wear gold, pearls, etc. and still be modest?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Cindy

Can't we wear gold, pearls, etc. and still be modest?

According to the Lord, yes. But it violates some folks' traditions.

Watch the "scholarliness" (ahem) of multiple question marks and letters in words. And see words about quoting scriptures as if that explains the issue. What a sad joke. Some folks are given over, sis.

[Cindy]

I find it fascinating in the OT how God put into the minds of men to be silversmiths, tailors, etc.and all kinds of trades. To make beautiful things for Him.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Cindy

I find it fascinating in the OT how God put into the minds of men to be silversmiths, tailors, etc.and all kinds of trades. To make beautiful things for Him.

With John's description of Heaven in mind. God could have just created things for His children instead of teaching them how to do it themselves. He seems to like ornate, beautiful things.

[mfblume]

This is the rife nonsense argued against Ezekiel 16 to excuse away something God did in His eyes for His lady as though He did something He PERMITTED, but later showed displeasure over. As if.

Re. Ezekiel 16, rdp said...

Originally Posted by rdp

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.

In order for God to show permission for something and later show displeasure, as rdp said here, and yet see GOD HIMSELF said HE CLOTHED Israel in jewelry, is to make God double minded. Permitting someone to do something YOU DO NOT FAVOUR does not mean YOU DO IT YOURSELF.

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."

GOD DIVORCED ISRAEL. Hating it means God hated the idea it had to occur. But people have to reconcile the FACT that God divorced Israel Himself with the FACT He hates divorce. The only way to reconcile that is to use common sense and realize the ACT of divorcing is not wrong, OR GOD DID SOMETHING WRONG. It means the situation requiring it is what He hates.

RDP, see if you can answer this directly without hedging. DID GOD DO WRONG WHEN HE DECKED ISAEL WITH JEWELRY? DID GOD DO WRONG WHEN HE DIVORCED ISRAEL?

together with the idePolygamy 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.

Did God ALLOW HIMSELF, when in actuality He knew it was wrong, to divorce and to deck Israel with jewelry? Yes or no?

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.].

Why would God do something Himself that He tolerated for men to do but later showed His displeasure in? I really want to see that answer from you.

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.

So, God in weakness had a problem with pride and later straightened Himself and everyone else out? That seems to be what you are saying.

Let's see some answers, RDP. Try to use a little scholarliness at least instead of the juvenile multitude of question marks and letters in a words.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by rdp

Is that all you got?

Why not just answer the question?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

According to the Lord, yes. But it violates some folks' traditions.

Watch the "scholarliness" (ahem) of multiple question marks and letters in words. And see words about quoting scriptures as if that explains the issue. What a sad joke. Some folks are given over, sis.

"Given over" indeed....esp. those who try to erase God-Breathed Scripture such as "not with gold jewelry....". Spare the "idiom"...it's a joke.

[mfblume]

He cannot answer. Just juvenile and unscholarly responses. Typical. He interprets scripture based upon his tradition, and then cannot reconcile Ezekiel 16 without having to say something as stupid as how God tolerated something and then later showed displeasure, not knowing that tripe makes God out to be a fool who did something He ONLY TOLERATED with man and actually disliked. It makes God do things WRONG, HIMSELF! And he thinks his view of "not wearing of gold" is correct when it clearly is a misinterpretation and makes God out to be a wrong-doer, Himself. Had he understood what "not the wearing of gold" actually meant in context , he would see it chimes with Ezekiel 16 without God looking like He is a wrongdoer.

Anybody with any sense of context and honesty after seeing these problems with this reasoning would drop the folly and realize they were mistaken.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

This is the rife nonsense argued against Ezekiel 16 to excuse away something God did in His eyes for His lady as though He did something He PERMITTED, but later showed displeasure over. As if.

Re. Ezekiel 16, rdp said...


In order for God to show permission for something and later show displeasure, as rdp said here, and yet see GOD HIMSELF said HE CLOTHED Israel in jewelry, is to make God double minded. Permitting someone to do something YOU DO NOT FAVOUR does not mean YOU DO IT YOURSELF.



GOD DIVORCED ISRAEL. Hating it means God hated the idea it had to occur. But people have to reconcile the FACT that God divorced Israel Himself with the FACT He hates divorce. The only way to reconcile that is to use common sense and realize the ACT of divorcing is not wrong, OR GOD DID SOMETHING WRONG. It means the situation requiring it is what He hates.

RDP, see if you can answer this directly without hedging. DID GOD DO WRONG WHEN HE DECKED ISAEL WITH JEWELRY? DID GOD DO WRONG WHEN HE DIVORCED ISRAEL?


Did God ALLOW HIMSELF, when in actuality He knew it was wrong, to divorce and to deck Israel with jewelry? Yes or no?



Why would God do something Himself that He tolerated for men to do but later showed His displeasure in? I really want to see that answer from you.



So, God in weakness had a problem with pride and later straightened Himself and everyone else out? That seems to be what you are saying.

Let's see some answers, RDP. Try to use a little scholarliness at least instead of the juvenile multitude of question marks and letters in a words.

I responded to this in detail last night, & then the computer wouldn't let me post it! Ughhhh.....so I gave up for the night.

It's humorous how you require me to answer your every question [which is no problemo!], then you entirely ignore mine. Thus, what you adamantly require of me, you yourself do not practice!

So, let's try this again: Mike, since you apparently do not undertand that Ezek. 16 uses jewelry in a metaphorical way & is NOT talking about God LITERALLY putting "nose rings and fine linen" on Israel.....would you have a problem w/ a preacher being "decked" out from head to toe in jewels [including nose rings] & preaching to you about modesty & temperance:___________?

Can't you just fill out ONE of these blanks Mike? When you do....then I'll answer your questions [which I did last night anyway].

Either way you go....I'll be waiting w/ a response! Much more I want to say right now, but am pressed for time today.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

He cannot answer. Just juvenile and unscholarly responses. Typical. He interprets scripture based upon his tradition, and then cannot reconcile Ezekiel 16 without having to say something as stupid as how God tolerated something and then later showed displeasure, not knowing that tripe makes God out to be a fool who did something He ONLY TOLERATED with man and actually disliked. It makes God do things WRONG, HIMSELF!

As usual, your argument is w/ God's Word [just as it is in I Tim. 2]. GOD is the one who tolerated divorce, but showed His displeasure w/ it in Mal. You then start dancing all around this by calling God "double-minded".....when the argument could easily be turned around. That is, God Himself said "not with gold jewelry, pearls, or costly apparel," but hey folks, Mike knows better than the great apostles Paul/Peter & we should follow him & not them! Spare me your theology Mike....I'll stick w/ the NT instructions to the church over your liberal eisegesis any day of the week!

And he thinks his view of "not wearing of gold" is correct when it clearly is a misinterpretation and makes God out to be a wrong-doer, Himself. Had he understood what "not the wearing of gold" actually meant in context , he would see it chimes with Ezekiel 16 without God looking like He is a wrongdoer.

Silly me....taking the Word of God at face value for what it literally says! I should've gone to Mike first to see what it "really" meant ! And you're talking to me about "scholarliness"??????

Anybody with any sense of context and honesty after seeing these problems with this reasoning would drop the folly and realize they were mistaken.

"Honesty" is exactly the reason I reject your eisegesical treatment of I Tim. 2.....what you say is not found in the text itself! Only in the 3rd chp. of your imagination. Sorry Charlie...try again...check back over the weekend when I have more time.