Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

Thanks jfrog.

Not making yourself beautiful (adorning) with jewelry, your new hair do or your wardrobe, but make yourself beautiful (adorn) with a beautiful spirit.

Not sure what rdp is trying to insist the NIV (and others he says) are saying with regard to apparel.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Thanks jfrog.

Not making yourself beautiful (adorning) with jewelry, your new hair do or your wardrobe, but make yourself beautiful (adorn) with a beautiful spirit.

Not sure what rdp is trying to insist the NIV (and others he says) are saying with regard to apparel.

rdp is trying to insist that apparel ought to be modified specifically be "adorning". This would have the effect of putting beautiful or costly in front of the word apparel. This would negate our earlier argument that it's not a prohibition because it would be prohibiting clothes if it was. If beautiful/costly was added in front of apparel then the verse could be a prohibition to all those things since it wouldn't be prohibiting clothes in general.

Of course when I made a transliteration of this verse I found something even more amazing. The apparel the verse mentions isn't literal apparel at all, it's totally figurative, and the verse isn't telling us not to wear the apparel it speaks of, it's telling us to wear it because the apparel it speaks of is the kind that covers the heart, an incorruptible, mild/humble and peaceable mind/spirit.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by jfrog

rdp is trying to insist that apparel ought to be modified specifically be "adorning". This would have the effect of putting beautiful or costly in front of the word apparel. This would negate our earlier argument that it's not a prohibition because it would be prohibiting clothes if it was. If beautiful/costly was added in front of apparel then the verse could be a prohibition to all those things since it wouldn't be prohibiting clothes in general.

Of course when I made a transliteration of this verse I found something even more amazing. The apparel the verse mentions isn't literal apparel at all, it's totally figurative, and the verse isn't telling us not to wear the apparel it speaks of, it's telling us to wear it because the apparel it speaks of is the kind that covers the heart, an incorruptible, mild/humble and peaceable mind/spirit.

I get that. Neither do I straight-face suggest Peter has in mind wearing clothes (the opposite of going naked). If he's on the subject of adornment, things people wear to beautify, it would make sense that the clothing is being worn in such a way as to beautify the woman... something quite common for women. The statement ultimately is getting to the heart of "where does beauty come from?" Further, it states what true adorning is (as we see in v5). By "true adorning," it doesn't prohibit the others, it rather sets them in perspective.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by jfrog

rdp is trying to insist that apparel ought to be modified specifically be "adorning". This would have the effect of putting beautiful or costly in front of the word apparel. This would negate our earlier argument that it's not a prohibition because it would be prohibiting clothes if it was. If beautiful/costly was added in front of apparel then the verse could be a prohibition to all those things since it wouldn't be prohibiting clothes in general.

Of course when I made a transliteration of this verse I found something even more amazing. The apparel the verse mentions isn't literal apparel at all, it's totally figurative, and the verse isn't telling us not to wear the apparel it speaks of, it's telling us to wear it because the apparel it speaks of is the kind that covers the heart, an incorruptible, mild/humble and peaceable mind/spirit.

Yes, Peter definitely zones in on the word "adorning" here making full use of it. In the first context, he is definitely literal. But then he uses the word to talk about how women are truly beautified. This doesn't mean they don't still "beautify" themselves (the nature of a woman), it means they understand the source, true beauty, etc....

Eugene Peterson does a great job on this pericope:
The same goes for you wives: Be good wives to your husbands, responsive to their needs. There are husbands who, indifferent as they are to any words about God, will be captivated by your life of holy beauty. What matters is not your outer appearance—the styling of your hair, the jewelry you wear, the cut of your clothes—but your inner disposition.
4-6Cultivate inner beauty, the gentle, gracious kind that God delights in. The holy women of old were beautiful before God that way, and were good, loyal wives to their husbands. Sarah, for instance, taking care of Abraham, would address him as "my dear husband." You'll be true daughters of Sarah if you do the same, unanxious and unintimidated.

Amazing when we read these letters with the intent at getting the message, the heart of the letter first and leaving that as our primary goal... avoids us majoring in the minors.

[Godsdrummer]

I will try and put this into words that I mean but sometimes that is a problem. So here goes.

I just don't get it. How some do not see what they are doing. But then Jesus did not himself respond to the religious leaders of his day with anything other that the word of God. In its proper context and meaning. He spoke with authority because he was speaking his own words and knew what he ment.

Here is the thing Jesus over and over upbraided the religious leaders for their pious teachings and overly strick usage of the law of Moses. They had defined and redefined the simple commandments of God till they filled up a separate book. Kind of reminds me of the articles of faith of the UPCI, given is a list of standards that are hard put to find anywhere in scripture yet these are given and preached as sin through out the organization.

Here is the final point, We are to love and accept those that God has received, even though they do not have as high of standards or have lower standards.

Paul was not just talking about meat, and the sabbath in this passage.

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

I am going to say this again, that last time I said this I got my head bit off LOL but this is what scripture says.

The weak Christian is the one who put restrictions on what he can do, like eating meat, and keeping the sabboth day.

Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

How is it that we miss this verse, this is the spirit we that have Christ are supposed to have. We that eat meat, allow more liberty to do those things others feel a need to prohibite. Are not to despise the other.

Those of us that put limitations on our walk with God are not to judge the other for God has received them.

Yet we see this everyday the judging of one another and the despising of those that are weaker. All we are doing is showing our true spirit is not of God.
Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations

We are further instructed not to dispute with one another over these issues. I for one want to appoligize for the disputing as God can do more to show his child the error of thier way much better than I can, without causing a brother to fall.

RDP Pray for me as I will pray that you find a closer walk with God than you imagined. and that your eyes will look to our God and creator rather than other christians in judgement.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I will try and put this into words that I mean but sometimes that is a problem. So here goes.

I just don't get it. How some do not see what they are doing. But then Jesus did not himself respond to the religious leaders of his day with anything other that the word of God.

That's exactly what I've been quoting...The Word of God!

In its proper context and meaning. He spoke with authority because he was speaking his own words and knew what he ment.

Here is the thing Jesus over and over upbraided the religious leaders for their pious teachings and overly strick usage of the law of Moses. They had defined and redefined the simple commandments of God till they filled up a separate book. Kind of reminds me of the articles of faith of the UPCI, given is a list of standards that are hard put to find anywhere in scripture yet these are given and preached as sin through out the organization.

Ughhh, it comes right out of the Scriptures [I Tim. 2, I Ptr. 3, etc.]. What Bible are YOU reading? And, I suppose that the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. [w/ all of their 'trinity' jargon] can have a manual, but us mean ol' Pentecostals aren't allowed one right?? Silly!

Here is the final point, We are to love and accept those that God has received, even though they do not have as high of standards or have lower standards.

Does God "receive" those who make His Word of no affect?

Paul was not just talking about meat, and the sabbath in this passage.

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

I am going to say this again, that last time I said this I got my head bit off LOL but this is what scripture says.

The weak Christian is the one who put restrictions on what he can do, like eating meat, and keeping the sabboth day.

Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

How is it that we miss this verse, this is the spirit we that have Christ are supposed to have. We that eat meat, allow more liberty to do those things others feel a need to prohibite. Are not to despise the other.

Those of us that put limitations on our walk with God are not to judge the other for God has received them.

Yet we see this everyday the judging of one another and the despising of those that are weaker. All we are doing is showing our true spirit is not of God.
Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations

We are further instructed not to dispute with one another over these issues. I for one want to appoligize for the disputing as God can do more to show his child the error of thier way much better than I can, without causing a brother to fall.

RDP Pray for me as I will pray that you find a closer walk with God than you imagined. and that your eyes will look to our God and creator rather than other christians in judgement.

I appreciate your spirit here & hope that God leads us all to a closer walk in him. I'm not your enemy. Hey, my wife & I are thinking about coming to see Washington state soon...I hear it's breathtaking!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

rdp is trying to insist that apparel ought to be modified specifically be "adorning". This would have the effect of putting beautiful or costly in front of the word apparel. This would negate our earlier argument that it's not a prohibition because it would be prohibiting clothes if it was. If beautiful/costly was added in front of apparel then the verse could be a prohibition to all those things since it wouldn't be prohibiting clothes in general.

Of course when I made a transliteration of this verse I found something even more amazing. The apparel the verse mentions isn't literal apparel at all, it's totally figurative, and the verse isn't telling us not to wear the apparel it speaks of, it's telling us to wear it because the apparel it speaks of is the kind that covers the heart, an incorruptible, mild/humble and peaceable mind/spirit.

Ahhh, the ol' "Allegorical/Figurative" hermeneutic popularized by Origen. Shame on you jfrog...you should know better!