You not preaching holiness till you've named it!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Cracker Barrel

I think the issue IZ we as humans try to justify and recycle what God has put out and drawn a line in scripture wheather by line or precept. Like you are doing. Homosexuality has never been exceptible, why are you defending them, what is this obsession of your to compare this ungodly deed?! Homosexuality has never been exceptible, God has been working with man to overcome and reach further forward not backward. Your saying it was right then do it must be right now, I say it was a proven snare to Gods people and now is unexcepable. The Old Testament is full of types and shadows of things to come. The Achilles' heel Of Prederism.

The word is "acceptable".

And its not pred...

Anyway, God does not use sinful pictures to show godly realities. By the same token, God does not use something that was a SNARE to people to illustrate something godly. You are saying jewelry was acceptable but is now sin, while homosexuality never was acceptable and it is not now. lol I agree homosexuality never was acceptable. But it's ridiculous to say jewelry was acceptable and now is sin.

Types pointing to things to come is the achilles heel of preterism? How? (I'd like to debate you on prophecy.)

Anyway, there was NOTHING acceptable in the old testament that God used as an illustration of a spiritual reality where the literal type is is sinful now. NOTHING.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by consapente89

ElderBarrel had made another excellent post and the forum liberals take 8 pages to debate one small portion of the original post while totally ignoring the heart of the matter. Figures...

"Forum liberals." So I see it get insulting now.

Typical.

[good samaritan]

If God adorns in jewels doesn't mean he advocates jewelry.

You admitted the truth and then you waffled again. Shame points to sahme, but sin doesn't point to godliness.

We are still speaking two different languages.

Jewel's were associated by carnal people as God's blessing. So, therefore God communicated in terms they could understand.

By God using those terms it had nothing to do with license of neither walking naked or wearing jewelry.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

We are still speaking two different languages.

Jewel's were associated by carnal people as God's blessing. So, therefore God communicated in terms they could understand.

By God using those terms it had nothing to do with license of neither walking naked or wearing jewelry.

Jewels were associated by God as godly blessings in Ezekiel 16.

And God's use of them does indeed show license. And walking naked was shameful and used to show something shameful, and if jewels were ungodly they'd be used to show something ungodly.

If I am missing something you're saying then please explain, but let's not get into the insulting going on by others here. Not sure why they make it personal.

Shame of walking naked (a negative) points to shame of Egypt taken captive (a negative). Unlike you allegation that jewels (a negative) are used to show something godly (a positive). There is no comparison to nakedness and the jewel picture.

[consapente89]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

no queers tickling the ivories at our church. My wife plays the piano. Lol.

👍

[Cracker Barrel]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The word is "acceptable".

And its not pred...

Anyway, God does not use sinful pictures to show godly realities. By the same token, God does not use something that was a SNARE to people to illustrate something godly. You are saying jewelry was acceptable but is now sin, while homosexuality never was acceptable and it is not now. lol I agree homosexuality never was acceptable. But it's ridiculous to say jewelry was acceptable and now is sin.

Types pointing to things to come is the achilles heel of preterism? How? (I'd like to debate you on prophecy.)

Anyway, there was NOTHING acceptable in the old testament that God used as an illustration of a spiritual reality where the literal type is is sinful now. NOTHING.

This has always been God's way. To reveal the weakness of the flesh by allowing humanity to indulge in their own will and ignorance. The reason that the adorning the body with jewelry has been a snare to God's people, was because of the pride of the flesh that arose when adorned this way. Because in the flesh you have no understanding of the perfect will of God. Now that we are a people of the Spirit our understanding has been enlightened.

1 Corinthians 1:29 That NO flesh should glory in his presence!

Examples..

Romans 7:5-13
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness ofthe letter.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.

For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Was then that which is good made death unto me?

God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good;

that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.....

Romans 8:3-8
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh;

but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

[Cracker Barrel]

Originally Posted by mfblume

there was NOTHING acceptable in the old testament that God used as an illustration of a spiritual reality where the literal type is is sinful now. NOTHING.

Yeah..
Go ahead and start practicing da Levitical Law. See where that gets you.

Straight to hell brother.

Lolo I say !?!?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Jewels were associated by God as godly blessings in Ezekiel 16.

And God's use of them does indeed show license. And walking naked was shameful and used to show something shameful, and if jewels were ungodly they'd be used to show something ungodly.

If I am missing something you're saying then please explain, but let's not get into the insulting going on by others here. Not sure why they make it personal.

Shame of walking naked (a negative) points to shame of Egypt taken captive (a negative). Unlike you allegation that jewels (a negative) are used to show something godly (a positive). There is no comparison to nakedness and the jewel picture.

I have exhausted myself trying to explain things in this thread. The fact is that 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 should end all of this debate. You are saying that what the scripture is actually saying is not what it is meaning and that we are misunderstanding. At the same time acknowledging that God adorning Israel with jewelry in the OT was truly figurative and not literal.

Esaiahs made the statement that foreign slaves where going to be the reward of God. Is slavery(a negative) not denoting the blessings of God (a positive). The fact that Israel had slaves or wore jewelry is not proof that God desires us to. Are we not forgetting that natural Israel has been cast away.

There is no way that people (especially middle class and below) can spend money on extravagant jewels to hang of their body and it not be a heart issue. God adorned Israel with jewels which denotes he placed his blessing upon that nation. If that is the way you feel God blesses us today then I would have to disagree. God blesses us with the fruit of the Spirit and treasures in heaven. We kid ourselves to say that those jewels don't matter an they are like combing our hair. It is summed up in one word, PRIDE.

The 2 scriptures already given should be enough to end this whole debate. It continues round and round probably because people are trying to justify others in their own life and the circles that they associate with. I am not speaking against functional jewelry such watches and wedding bands. People do not take the time out to go to a jewelers and spend hundreds to thousands of dollars if it is not important to them.

I am not going to throw insults I insure everyone of that. MB you especially, I have admired and gleaned so much from your insights in the word of God. But, I have to part ways with you here. My Spirit does not agree with the conclusions that you have come to on this subject. I do not wish to offend anyone here and have no grudges. If you have been born of water and the Spirit I still consider you brethren. I fear for my family and my church that they not be taken back by the lust of the flesh, lust of the eye and the pride of life.

PS I don't think jewelry in itself will send someone to hell, but it is a sign of deeper vices. Although, if we never bring these things to the surface then people could potentially be lost.

[houston]

Funny. If Peter is against gold then he is also against apparel.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

So how could natural adornments be sinful to wear if they portray a godly thing?

And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty.
(Exodus 28:2 KJV)

And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD. And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be. And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD.
(Exodus 28:36-38 KJV)

And thou shalt put the mitre upon his head, and put the holy crown upon the mitre. Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head, and anoint him. And thou shalt bring his sons, and put coats upon them. And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons.
(Exodus 29:6-9 KJV)


The priests wore head coverings in the OT. The head covering was 'holy' and was for 'glory and beauty'. So then, by the reasoning given by some here, it should be acceptable for Christians to likewise wear headcoverings. Yet we have this for Christian men, an instruction of the apostle:

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
(1 Corinthians 11:4 KJV)

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
(1 Corinthians 11:7 KJV)

Under the old covenant, men of God were to have their head covered when they approached God or when they officiated on His behalf. But under the new covenant, men are NOT to have their head covered when approaching God or speaking on His behalf. What was allowed under the old is forbidden under the new.


Let's look at another example:

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:
(Numbers 6:2 KJV)

All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.
(Numbers 6:5 KJV)

All the days of his separation he is holy unto the LORD.
(Numbers 6:8 KJV)

But the apostle says:

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
(1 Corinthians 11:14-15 KJV)

Under the old covenant, a man separated himself to God and signified that separation by letting his hair grow long. His long uncut hair was a sign of holiness and devotion to God. Under the new covenant, a man's long uncut hair signifies shame. What was allowed under specific circumstances in the old is forbidden in general circumstances in the new.

Jewelry falls into the exact same category. Things that were allowed, even commanded, under the old, and which signified spiritually good things, under the new are forbidden and signify spiritually bad things.