Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

So does that mean by Ezekiel 16's time jewelry was okay? By the way, where does the bible say God deemed jewelry something His people could not handle whereas they could beforehand? You are beginning to concoct doctrines as you go, now.



Wrong. I know the bible noted jewelry with harlotry, showing I ignore nothing of your argument. But in all your words, you refuse to answer me. I have explanations. Jewelry for SOME MANNERS is wrong, but not for all, and that means you cannot paint everyone who wears jewelry as a harlot, especially since the bible does not relate your distinction that claims TIME changed God's mind about the issue. lol What about Jesus' time when he mentioned the prodigal and a ring?

It's like you will argue for anti-jewelry stances no matter what.



Show me, then, why God used jewelry if we were meant to not use it alt all. You are hedging.

IOW< stick your head in the sand, and you mean you refuse to actually answer me.



With no more answers than today?

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!

[mfblume]

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!

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?

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.

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.

explicitly states "not with gold...." I mean really, what in the world can you fella's not understand about that?

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.

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

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

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.].

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..

Yet, you fella's just plod along like it's not there, & when you do address it,

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.

you have your eraser out "making the Word of God of no effect."

Then cut out Ezekiel 16. Chop it out.

Sorry Charlie...ain't buying it!

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.

[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!!!

[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???

[Jeffrey]

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.

Your calling Mike an enemy of God? Are you serious?????

Maybe your phylacteries are being worn a little too tight.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Your calling Mike an enemy of God? Are you serious?????

Maybe your phylacteries are being worn a little too tight.

I see, I reference God-breathed Scripture....& now I'm wearing "phylacteries"???

Man, you guys are a trip!

[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.

[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!

[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.