Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

rdp · #1 10-05-2010, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin

What exactly did I dodge? You said the man with the gold ring was the "outsider", while the poor man was "not".

I pointed out that both men "came in".

The whole point James is trying to make is that this minister not favor the rich man over the poor man.

I explained the difference in gold rings & shabby clothes a few posts ago to you. Go back & reread it. Will not sit here & just repeat everything. Regardless, the man w/ "gold rings" was still "coming in"...not already in!

Justin · #2 10-05-2010, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

I explained the difference in gold rings & shabby clothes a few posts ago to you. Go back & reread it. Will not sit here & just repeat everything. Regardless, the man w/ "gold rings" was still "coming in"...not already in!

Regardless, the man w/ "shabby clothes" was still "coming in"...not already in!

Jeffrey · #3 10-05-2010, 11:22 AM

What in God's name are you two doing to the Text? lol

It's not made of spandex, quit stretching it to make a point that it's not written to make!

The man was in , the man was coming in, therefore that means... oh give me a break.

Justin · #4 10-05-2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What in God's name are you two doing to the Text? lol

It's not made of spandex, quit stretching it to make a point that it's not written to make!

The man was in , the man was coming in, therefore that means... oh give me a break.

I know. I have no idea where he is going with the man and the ring being the outsider "coming in". They were both outsiders "coming in" He doesn't see that I guess.

rdp · #5 10-26-2010, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin

I know. I have no idea where he is going with the man and the ring being the outsider "coming in". They were both outsiders "coming in" He doesn't see that I guess.

Why am I not surprised that you 2 would agree??? What YOU "don't see" is that the man w/ the gold ring, as well as the man w/ vile clothing, were both O-U-T-S-I-D-E of the Ekklessia...not w/in! Let me help you out here: This means that people w/in the church did not wear either!

So sad how you fella's fight the text......seriously.

Justin · #6 10-26-2010, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Why am I not surprised that you 2 would agree??? What YOU "don't see" is that the man w/ the gold ring, as well as the man w/ vile clothing, were both O-U-T-S-I-D-E of the Ekklessia...not w/in! Let me help you out here: This means that people w/in the church did not wear either!

So sad how you fella's fight the text......seriously.

I truly do not understand your logic. How you do gather that people in the church did not wear rings? Just because someone who wore them came in to the church?

If this is what you believe, you are clearly missing the context.

Godsdrummer · #7 10-27-2010, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin

I truly do not understand your logic. How you do gather that people in the church did not wear rings? Just because someone who wore them came in to the church?

If this is what you believe, you are clearly missing the context.

It is very simple realy, they simbolize anything that does not back up thier point, try to make the greek meaning back up what the context of scripture does not say.

Example: I heard a pastor once preach against facial hair. Now I knew there were those that preached against it but could not see where they could possibly get this teaching from.

This pastor used the passage that "says it is a shame for a man to prophecy with his head covered" and followed that up with the statement that the face is part of the head there for should not be covered.

Oh well you can lead a horse to water.....

rdp · #8 10-28-2010, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin

I truly do not understand your logic. How you do gather that people in the church did not wear rings? Just because someone who wore them came in to the church?

If this is what you believe, you are clearly missing the context.

Assertions do not serve as evidence; the textual fact remains that the one's w/ the gold ring & vile clothing are depicted as outsiders...not insiders. YOU are the one missing the "context".

MissBrattified · #9 10-28-2010, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin

I truly do not understand your logic. How you do gather that people in the church did not wear rings? Just because someone who wore them came in to the church?

If this is what you believe, you are clearly missing the context.

That's because he isn't being logical. It's egregiously reading into the text to assume that the scripture indicating two men coming "unto your assembly" means they are unbelievers attending for the first time.

The scriptures following verse 2 stay with the context of rich vs. poor. They don't indicate in any sense that the man's "vile" clothing is anything other than dirty, cheap or shabby. Verse 6 addresses the fact that "ye have despised the poor" and reminds them of why they shouldn't favor the rich. "...rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats...[and] blaspheme that worthy name...."

This passage has nothing to do with condemning gold rings or goodly [magnificent or sumptuous] apparel. Nor do they condemn "vile" clothing. (Clothing that is dirty, cheap or shabby.) It has everything to do with teaching Christians not to show favoritism.

rdp · #10 10-26-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin

Regardless, the man w/ "shabby clothes" was still "coming in"...not already in!

The Greek word for "shabby," is also translated as "vile" in Rom. 1 & elsewhere. This is the idea behind the term, so YES, they were both "coming in" as opposed to already "in"! Regardless, anything to make the Bible fit your theology eh' Justin.