Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

(There you go with that juveniile nonsense of writing. Would you please quit and appear a little more scholarly for goodness' sake?)

Literal text?

It literally says beauty does not come from clothes. But that does not mean do not wear clothes!

Toooooooooo funny! You charge ME w/ "juvenile nonsense," & in the very next post you bold, underline, & use super large font size to make a 'point' [which was actually nothing more than your theology]! Just refuse to see yourself eh' Mike!? Oh & by the way, since you affirm that the text of I Ptr. 3 "literally says beauty does not come from clothes"....could you pls. provide us w/ the quote FROM THE TEXT ITSELF which "literally says" this:_________? Oooops....another unprovable mere assertion from the Mike dug-out! And you're talking to ME about "tradition" ??



It is not eisegesis. IT says what I showed abode. You just refuse to consider anything different than your tradition.

Yes...it is blatant eisegesis regardless of your denials. Still waiting on where the text "literally says beauty does not come from clothes":__________? How rich !

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by rdp

Yes...it is blatant eisegesis regardless of your denials. Still waiting on where the text "literally says beauty does not come from clothes":__________? How rich !

Im right!!!!

NO IM RIGHT!

No its a bad eisegesis

No your hermenuetics is off!

man i think both of you guys are

lol

i want to take over this thread

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Actually it reveals our whole point you have been missing. Not wearing apparel does not mean not wearing ANY clothes, just as not wearing gold does not mean not wearing ANY gold. FINERY is not in the text. It is obvious that is the meaning. IOW, words not in the text are obviously the intention. Same with wearing of gold.

That does not even make sense and totally avoids the point I made.




G5553
χρυσίον
chrusion
khroo-see'-on
Diminutive of G5557; a golden article, that is, gold plating, ornament, or coin: - gold.

It is not necessarily ornaments. But since the term WEAR is there, then it obviously means ornaments. You miss the scholars' thoughts. They did not say it was gold ornaments because the Greek term CHRUSION means an ornament made from gold, but the WEARING of it makes that sense plain. Not the word itself. The same word is used as COIN!

Heb 9:4 KJV+ Which hadG2192 the goldenG5552 censer,G2369 andG2532 theG3588 arkG2787 of theG3588 covenantG1242 overlaidG4028 round aboutG3840 with gold,G5552 whereinG1722 G3739 was the goldenG5553 potG4713 that hadG2192 manna,G3131 andG2532 Aaron'sG2 rodG4464 that budded,G985 andG2532 theG3588 tablesG4109 of theG3588 covenant;G1242

Rev 21:18 KJV+ AndG2532 theG3588 buildingG1739 of theG3588 wallG5038 of itG846 wasG2258 of jasper:G2393 andG2532 theG3588 cityG4172 was pureG2513 gold,G5553 like untoG3664 clearG2513 glass.G5194

1Pe 1:18 KJV+ Forasmuch as ye knowG1492 thatG3754 ye were notG3756 redeemedG3084 with corruptible things,G5349 as silverG694 andG2228 gold,G5553 fromG1537 yourG5216 vainG3152 conversationG391 received by tradition from your fathers;G3970

See how the term is sued for MONEY and even a STREET? The scholars said it was ornamentation due to the WEARING on a PERSON.



More juvenile rant. Just talk.



Hermeneutics? You need to think a bit more about this. You are skirting the issue and dancing around the point and compounding your error. I am not using an figurative passages from the OT to override anything in the NT. Your interpretation is doing that. This shows your argument is circular. You are implying you are right about your interpretation without proving it, and demand all sorts of nonsensical rules of what a person can or cannot do with figurative thoughts.

The fact that YOUR interpretation of the New Testament passages makes it a situation where ONE MUST OVERRIDE that interpretation in order to say God would not use an unholy picture to illustrate a holy act shows that your interpretation is incorrect. The truth is that it is ridiculous since it implies God does something figuratively that is wrongdoing when done literally and alright when used figuratively.

RDP, stop and listen and answer for a moment. Why in the world would God think that a literal act that is wrong can be used to describe something holy and good in a figurative manner? You are not addressing that at all, but making up nonsensical rules as you go along to retain your tradition.

Until you answer that, everyone is wasting their time with you. (Watch folks, HE WILL NOT ANSWER THAT ONE.)



You are not responding in direct answers to our statements at all, and I doubt you ever will.
I have never seen anyone dance all around an issue like you are doing here.

You plug your ears hollering lalalalala, and do not even stop to think that your entire interpretation is flawed, and that it in effect makes God use EVIL ACTS to show HOLY LOVE. God is not that stupid, rdp. Come one, man.



Oh please. Grow up for a moment. Others have already showed Rebecca wearing jewelry literally and many other literal actions that were not at all decried by the Lord in the context whatsoever. And for you to denounce Ezekiel 16 shows your rife ignorance.]


I am sorry, your manner and childishness is too profuse to give me concern to bother. By their fruits we know them, and you have none. That is all I really need in all of this anyway. Knee jerk reactions? on the contrary I am taking time to elucidate on the passages and all you can do is type like a child and speak in juvenile rhetoric. And then you claim you will not answer me. Typical.



Had you even read and took note of my point you might have said something sensible in response.

Grow up, bro. This is a waste of time. Your rant made the point louder than we could.

Folks, forgive me for wasting all our time with this.

Well, since most of this is just ad hominem scorn [which you chide me for] w/ little exegesis, I'm not real sure what the purpose of this post was/is?

All I'll waste my time to say is that you concede above that the context [i.e., "wearing"] indicates that jewelry is in view here....which is precisely the point that I made originally! Or, would you have us to believe that Paul/Peter was forbidding believers to "wear" coins & a street?!?!?! "Rife" indeed!

I have dealt w/ your Ezek. 16 argument ad nauseum. Will not just sit here & peck away the same things over & over, just for you to come back & say "You're not answering"....when I have dealt w/ the beloved passage until I could pass out. "Childish/juvenile" indeed!

Call it "making things up" all you want...I've shown you repeatedly that humanity was not the temple of God in the OT & that the dwelling places of God have ALWAYS had the jewels on the INSIDE...not the OUTSIDE! If you wanna' call this Scriptural fact "making things up"...go right ahead if soothes your conscience!

If the NT church wore jewelry surely you should be able to demostrate at least O-N-E example from the NT canon eh' Mike? Here's your chance:____________? Oooops...another unfillable blank by Mike!

Speaking of "fruit".....I'd say it's pretty rotten "fruit" that fights so hard to invalidate NT instructions to the church [I Tim. 2:12/I Ptr. 3:3] as you do. BTW, Paul w/stood Peter "to the face" for his error...let me guess, Paul did not have "fruit" either....right?

See thyself friend...............

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Hyper-literalists are funny people.

And it's always funny to hear them talk about exegesis and hermeneutics and then turn around say "what does the literal text say?" Can they not hear themselves?

Silly me for actually believing the instructions "not with gold jewelry"....what was I thinkin' ???? Guess we should start consulting w/ Origen & his allegorical hermeneutic???

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The true sense of 1 Pe 3:3 is related as follows:


1 Peter 3:3 Wives must not let their beauty be something external. Beauty doesn't come from hairstyles, gold jewelry, or clothes.
...

yeppers

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by acerrak

Im right!!!!

NO IM RIGHT!

No its a bad eisegesis

No your hermenuetics is off!

man i think both of you guys are

lol

i want to take over this thread

Not fair. I already apologized:

Folks, forgive me for wasting all our time with this.

lololol

[daviidwilson]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Way to go missbrattified I checked out the tinkling with their feet but did not add it to my post. I love the way people fill in the blanks some times

The same person who was discussing this on the other thread (not the originator of this thread) also says that 1 Cor 11 has nothing to do with headship, therefore all women are subject to all men.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Silly me for actually believing the instructions "not with gold jewelry"....what was I thinkin' ???? Guess we should start consulting w/ Origen & his allegorical hermeneutic???

Please submit Origen's exegesis for examination. Would love to read it.

Of course, in your book, Origen wasn't even saved!!

And, of course, silly rabbit, no one is saying to not accept the phrase you have produced on this thread 1,000,000,000,000,000 times. We are asking you to decide the meaning of what is being in said... in context! That's it. Not a lot to that. So as much as you get red-faced screaming "NOT WITH... can't you idiots read!" it's going to do no good. Red Herron. Straw man. You pick the "logical fallacy" that applies.... rightly handling the Word of truth. Not using a person's letter as a legal code to take a phrase and declare it's meaning "literal" without identifying the "literal context" of what is being said.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not fair. I already apologized:

Folks, forgive me for wasting all our time with this.

lololol

Finally something we agree on Mike....a "waste" of time indeed! Hey Mike, is it also okay to be decked out in "costly apparell"....or, let me guess, this doesn't mean what it plainly says either, right ??

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Please submit Origen's exegesis for examination. Would love to read it.

Of course, in your book, Origen wasn't even saved!!

Oh my land....Are you saying that you didn't even know that Origen was the originator of the "Allegorical Method"? And, it's not "my book"...it's God's Book! Sorry Jeffrey...try again!

And, of course, silly rabbit, no one is saying to not accept the phrase you have produced on this thread 1,000,000,000,000,000 times. We are asking you to decide the meaning of what is being in said... in context! That's it. Not a lot to that. So as much as you get red-faced screaming "NOT WITH... can't you idiots read!" it's going to do no good. Red Herron. Straw man. You pick the "logical fallacy" that applies.... rightly handling the Word of truth. Not using a person's letter as a legal code to take a phrase and declare it's meaning "literal" without identifying the "literal context" of what is being said.

So, I shouldn't interpret Paul's instructions to Timothy, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit, as "literal"???? Does this go for the passage that says that "God was manifest in the flesh...."? Is this also non-literal? Jeffrey, you're a hoot!

And just because someone quotes a verse many times, does this invalidate the force of the passage? You fella's just refuse to get it huh....'round & 'round she goes!