Isaiah 3 and jewelry... - Page 114

rdp · #**1131** 11-09-2010, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

A man of God who has understanding would highly respect the auhtority of a husband.

Thank you Truthseeker....I wouldn't even respond to these posts there so silly, but you make the point well.

Jeffrey · #**1132** 11-09-2010, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Exegesis is the art of lifting out original authorial intent Jeffrey. Haven't you ever heard, "Scripture can never mean what it never MEANT"? Honestly here, why do you guys fight the plainness of this passage...esp. when you concede above that the verse is referring to "literal gold"? We're making progress here! If it's "literal gold," then it's also a literal "not with"!

I have heard of that once or twice

Just because the words or images are literal doesn't take away from the idea of authorial intent. What was originally intended by this letter? A prohibition once and for all on jewelry? That just doesn't seem to be the point.

So rather than make it so, I'd curious about learning what scripture meant, instead of reading into it what we've all thought it meant.

(And where were we all unanimous about the gold in the passage being literal, and not instead descriptive of over-the-top lavish extravagance? Point being, literal words do not a literal message make. The context, discovery process of authorial intent, all contribute to understanding the one-sided letter).

Jeffrey · #**1133** 11-09-2010, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

A man of God who has understanding would highly respect the auhtority of a husband.

Randy doesn't support the headship of the husband?

Jeffrey · #**1134** 11-09-2010, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Well, again you refuse to answer my question about "costly apparel," then expect me to answer your question [which we've already addressed]. BUT, consider the OT sacrifices....were they spoken of by God favorably? Of course! Would it be a sin today to go back & begin animal sacrifices in order to roll your sins ahead? Of course it would [see Gal. 4-5].

I could marshall many, many more examples, but in principle, mankind was not the temple of God on the OT as they are today. A-L-L of the dwelling places of God on Earth have had the jewels INSIDE....NOT OUTSIDE of the temple. But, according to you, this has suddenly changed right Mike???? No thank you.

Now, I'm STILL WAITING on your response to my question about "costly apparel". Is it okay to wear such today? That is, would it be okay for me to wear a $1,000 suit to church?

Probably have to be Thurs. before I can respond...very busy.

So your argument is:

If Jewelry was something spoken of favorably by God, because sacrifices were also favorable and are now not favorable, therefore, jewelry likewise is no longer something God looks at with approval?

Of course the argument would then go into symbolism. Sacrifice -- killing an animal is not a sin -- offering the animal up for sin sacrifice however would spit on the sacrifice of Jesus. If I can remember right, you believe the Church somehow takes on a symbolism of jewelry now? This is where I wasn't able to follow you.

I believe that gets pretty stretchy, rdp. Jewels were not to the people of God what sacrifice is to the people of God, nor are they today. Are these really apples-to-oranges comparisons? Mike's point would be God's lack of disapproval in Ezekiel of jewelry. What was replaced that things have changed?

Truthseeker · #**1135** 11-09-2010, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

I could marshall many, many more examples, but in principle, mankind was not the temple of God on the OT as they are today. A-L-L of the dwelling places of God on Earth have had the jewels INSIDE....NOT OUTSIDE of the temple. But, according to you, this has suddenly changed right Mike???? No thank you.

.

Well, the NT church is described as a bride adorned for her husband.

Truthseeker · #**1136** 11-09-2010, 08:21 PM

Anyone gonna answer RDP question, is costly apparel ok?

Socialite · #**1137** 11-09-2010, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Anyone gonna answer RDP question, is costly apparel ok?

To re-create the scene, if someone is gathering at worship to flaunt wealth, social position, to otherwise marginalize other believers -- it's wrong. It isn't right. The reason jewlery is discussed at all is because that's what these women were doing. They wore it on their hair, ears, arms, clothing.

On the other hand, black cultures and black churches are big with vibrant colors, fun, decorative outfits, etc... Not sure I can make the application across the board. But we COULD use the same principle...

What this meant to the audience it was written to is not the same issue today (though it could be).... but the principles are universal.

Truthseeker · #**1138** 11-10-2010, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

To re-create the scene, if someone is gathering at worship to flaunt wealth, social position, to otherwise marginalize other believers -- it's wrong. It isn't right. The reason jewlery is discussed at all is because that's what these women were doing. They wore it on their hair, ears, arms, clothing.

On the other hand, black cultures and black churches are big with vibrant colors, fun, decorative outfits, etc... Not sure I can make the application across the board. But we COULD use the same principle...

What this meant to the audience it was written to is not the same issue today (though it could be).... but the principles are universal.

No offense, but that doesn't answer if ok or not to wear costly apparel????

Godsdrummer · #**1139** 11-10-2010, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

As for this last issue, I think someone may be referring to a "woman preacher" thread earlier this [or last?] year. Of course, the term "woman preacher" is an oxymoron, since Paul clearly forids the practice [I Tim. 2:11-15]. But, let me guess, this doesn't mean what it plainly says either....right Mike? In fact, why do you even have a Bible, since we apparently cannot take it at face value???

Eze 23:40 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,
Eze 23:41 And satest upon a stately bed, and a table prepared before it, whereupon thou hast set mine incense and mine oil.

How does this speak against these things as sin. It was not the washing themselves and presenting themselves in this manner that was wrong, it was the purpose that they did these things that was wrong.

You know what rdp if you want to read into scripture what is not there that is ok who am I to change you. But to pass your convictions to everyone else it becomes a problem. Jesus condemed the pharise in his day for the same thing. Acctualy he did not condem them as much as that it was the spirit they manifested that was wrong. Stipulating the letter over the spirit of the word. As Jesus informed them, that the works of the letter of the law did not bring eternal life, he brought eternal life.

IMHO we do a dis service to our Lord when we take the emphasis off of Christ and put it into works and our ward apperance. An out ward apperance that does not glorify him in the first place. Your rules and regulations do not bring others to Christ, they push them away.

Godsdrummer · #**1140** 11-10-2010, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

A man of God who has understanding would highly respect the auhtority of a husband.

A true man of God would understand he has no authority over the authority of the husband. The gifts of ministry are just that gifts and helps to the authority of the headship of the husband under Christ who is over the wife, that together are over the children.

When we understand the teaching of Christ that the greatest in the kingdom is the servant of all, that we function together as a body, Christ being the head. We will find the ussue of authority is moot.

We must remmember one given gifts of ministry are still just men, we are not infalable. Just as our own bodies are made up of three parts so is the body of Christ. From our head Jesus we get our idenity our direction. As most of this comes from the word, as individuals we know what is right and wrong. Where then is the need for positions of authority, IMHO these come from mans need to regulate what we think are laws of God. Most being mans traditions.

God did not and does not pull one part of the body apart to fill positions of authority, he works with in the body by his spirit through spiritual gifts to equip, the whole body to do the work of ministry, and to edify the body, till we all come to the unity of faith.

Even Paul the apostle (one sent) to the gentiles did not think more highly of himself than others. Even when withstanding Peter to his face he did not do so as one with authority over Peter and Peter did not feel his authority was being questioned as they did not look at things in light of authority. Or else he would not have accepted what came from the spirit of God through Paul.

Some may see this thread as a standards issue, I see it as a authority issue. "you must do it my way because I am an authroity of said subject and you must not be as you don't see things my way"

And we wonder why peope want nothing to do with Christianity?