Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

One can lift up holy hands anywhere, Mike. I hope you can see that. The translations disagree with you. Actually the message bible I believe states for men not to shake their fists at God with anger and doubting.

That may be so. I agree men can lift up hands anywhere. It's just that I think it is mentioning that anywhere where there is church... And one translation you quoted did agree with me.

1 Timothy 2:8 (New Living Translation)

8 In every place of worship, I want men to pray with holy hands lifted up to God, free from anger and controversy.

(do we only worship at church?)

Places of worship are churches.


But that is not my main argument, anyway.

It still stands that God would not contradict Himself to forbid all wearing of jewelry and then use it in other instances to indicate blessing and condoning of it.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That may be so. I agree men can lift up hands anywhere. It's just that I think it is mentioning that anywhere where there is church... And one translation you quoted did agree with me.



Places of worship are churches.


But that is not my main argument, anyway.

It still stands that God would not contradict Himself to forbid all wearing of jewelry and then use it in other instances to indicate blessing and condoning of it.

Paul exhorted woman not to wear it. Again the motive is what is being taught, not the gold itself. Again things in the OT were forbidden such as certain meats but were made clean in the NT. Why can you not believe opposite can occur?

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Paul exhorted woman not to wear it. Again the motive is what is being taught, not the gold itself. Again things in the OT were forbidden such as certain meats but were made clean in the NT. Why can you not believe opposite can occur?

Not sure comparing eating meat to jewelry is a good ideal. Accepting of eating meat signified Gods grace from my understanding.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Paul exhorted woman not to wear it. Again the motive is what is being taught, not the gold itself. Again things in the OT were forbidden such as certain meats but were made clean in the NT. Why can you not believe opposite can occur?

Opposites cannot occur in the Word as you claim the issue of jewelry involves opposites. The eating of certain meats involves reasons far different than anything to do with jewelry. The eating of meats regarded foreshadowing and symbolic elements as well as health issues. Nothing ever forbidden in one covenant is allowed for and used as illustrations of holy things and acts in another covenant. Face it, it is wrong to think jewelry is forbidden in the bible. You are missing the context of references in the New Testament. We cannot grasp for straws to hold onto a tradition that is simply mistaken.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Opposites cannot occur in the Word as you claim the issue of jewelry involves opposites. The eating of certain meats involves reasons far different than anything to do with jewelry. The eating of meats regarded foreshadowing and symbolic elements as well as health issues. Nothing ever forbidden in one covenant is allowed for and used as illustrations of holy things and acts in another covenant. Face it, it is wrong to think jewelry is forbidden in the bible. You are missing the context of references in the New Testament. We cannot grasp for straws to hold onto a tradition that is simply mistaken.

I have showed differences. Meat eating was a violation of the law in the old when it was unclean meat. Today all is blessed by prayer.

Jewelry wearing was pictured as a priviledge of wealth and authority in the Old, Our new high priest wore none of it as he humbled himself completely.

That is the message of the Bible. Do we take it or explain it away by saying it doesn't strictly forbid an action?

Principles are used in the NT. Its the spirit of the law, not the letter for us today. Thou shalts no longer cut it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

I have showed differences. Meat eating was a violation of the law in the old when it was unclean meat. Today all is blessed by prayer.

Meats were violation of law due to foreshadowing and symbolic purposes of those meats and mostly for health reasons. God allowed Noah to eat any meat, so long as the blood was removed. That was before law. We are back to what Noah was able to do, now. Law made more particular detailed forbiddances, but not for the sake of the eating of the meat being sin in and of itself. It was for health reasons.

Jewelry wearing was pictured as a priviledge of wealth and authority in the Old, Our new high priest wore none of it as he humbled himself completely.

Nothing teaches us that jewelry was distinctly abrogated by Jesus because it was prideful as though lack of it meant humbling Himself. That is assumption and reading it into the text. There is no chapter and verse that says Jesus was humble since He had no jewelry. He humbled Himself by being in the form of God and then fashioned as a man and died. (Phil 2). Not because he lacked jewelry. lol

Jewelry was not just wealth and authority. It was for beauty and God's Word said Rebekah was beautiful, while Ezek 16 has God saying Jerusalem was exceeding beautiful with the jewelry He metaphorically gave.

A person has to make things up and add to the Word in order to forbid jewelry since the bible does not make these claims at all.

That is the message of the Bible. Do we take it or explain it away by saying it doesn't strictly forbid an action?

That is not the message of the bible. It is what you made up.

Principles are used in the NT. Its the spirit of the law, not the letter for us today. Thou shalts no longer cut it.

That is apples and oranges. It is stretching things, to say the least, in order to uphold a tradition not taught by the Word.