Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Godsdrummer]

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.....

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

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.....

This is very bad news for all the women whose whole *heads* must then be covered .

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

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.....

Yes....anything to make the Word of God of no effect! You fella's just never will get it...sad, very sad.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

Yes....anything to make the Word of God of no effect! You fella's just never will get it...sad, very sad.

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.

So you agree with this????

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

So you agree with this????

You misunderstand me above, just as you apparently do Paul's instructions in I Tim. 2 [including the part against women "preachers"], "N-O-T with gold jewelry, pearls, or costly apparel." This is what you folks attempt to explain away. Does this mean what it says?

Put your eraser down, it'll still be there in eternity.......this is precisely why I rarely even check in this forum any more. It's hard to take the libs seriously.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

You misunderstand me above, just as you apparently do Paul's instructions in I Tim. 2 [including the part against women "preachers"], "N-O-T with gold jewelry, pearls, or costly apparel." This is what you folks attempt to explain away. Does this mean what it says?

I'm not a preacher. What does that have to do with this conversation? This isn't a church; it's the equivalent of dinner table conversation.

I agree that modesty includes not being extravagant, and I Timothy 2 makes the point that behavior (good works) is a greater adornment than extravagant jewelry or clothes. I agree with that take as a principle; I don't agree that it means literally that wearing jewelry or beautiful clothing is sinful.

I have trouble taking some people seriously, too. See? We have some common ground.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm not a preacher. What does that have to do with this conversation? This isn't a church; it's the equivalent of dinner table conversation.

I agree that modesty includes not being extravagant, and I Timothy 2 makes the point that behavior (good works) is a greater adornment than extravagant jewelry or clothes. I agree with that take as a principle; I don't agree that it means literally that wearing jewelry or beautiful clothing is sinful.

I have trouble taking some people seriously, too. See? We have some common ground.

So you don't take Scripture "literally"??????? Remember that when you come to Acts 2:38. Hmmmmm.................selectivity will cause many to be lost.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

So you don't take Scripture "literally"??????? Remember that when you come to Acts 2:38. Hmmmmm.................selectivity will cause many to be lost.

Apparently YOU don't take scripture literally, because you are reading INTO and adding TO the text what isn't there.

James 2 does NOT reference the poor man being evil; it points to his poverty and reminds Christians not to prefer the wealthy man over the poor man. You don't have a leg to stand on unless you add to the Word.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

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.....

Aha!!! THAT is why they plucked the beard from Jesus' face on His way to the cross! Now I get it! They were straightening Him up!