Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Any one address the other nots in the bible that were not literally not???

Like "labor not for meat"

"love not in word"

Oh my goodness...are you still comparing to verses that deal w/ natural things such as eating food & speaking w/ unnatural things such as decorative ornamentation on God's temple ?????

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by rdp

Oh my goodness...are you still comparing to verses that deal w/ natural things such as eating food & speaking w/ unnatural things such as decorative ornamentation on God's temple ?????

No where have I compared food with ornameentation, where you get that from? I was pointing out wording in the bible where not is to not being taken as literally not.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

No where have I compared food with ornameentation, where you get that from? I was pointing out wording in the bible where not is to not being taken as literally not.

Yes, but the reason it isn't taken as "not" in these verses is because eating/speaking are naturally inherent to humanity, whereas decorative ornamentation on God's temple is "not."

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Yes, but the reason it isn't taken as "not" in these verses is because eating/speaking are naturally inherent to humanity, whereas decorative ornamentation on God's temple is "not."

So, here's an example of where the "clear and plain" is not to be taken as "clear and plain." Instead, we must use some interpretive application to explain WHY the "not" is not so literal. Hmmmm... sounds like something everyone else has been arguing for the last 30 posts. You agree with it, then you turn the tables when it comes to 1 Tim, insisting it's "clear and plain."

Like a dog chasing its own tail.

[Jeffrey]

It seems that Timothy was having some issues in his churches in terms of what was going on during the worship service...He had already talked of the need for prayer for other leaders, and then he seems to get specific. Apparently the men were fighting, and the woman were trying to draw inappropriate attention to themselves.

A modern-time Epistle:

"Women, I've heard there are some problems with some of you flaunting yourselves around at worship. You have forgotten what true godliness should be -- not with fancy prom dresses, shopping sprees and elaborate hairstyles, but appropriateness, gentleness and all things in love as well as good conduct."

All of Paul's comments are in a one-two-three punch, in the flow of appropriateness at worship. He gives a few words to the men, and then says "likewise," transitioning the subject to the women.

Paul states it positively first, and then negatively. He then says, “not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire.” The question comes up here, Is it a sin to braid your hair or to wear jewelry? I don’t think that’s the point of Paul’s statement. And the reason I think that is the similar passage in 1 Peter 3:3-4, which says, “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the
imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’ sight is very precious.” Notice what Peter speaks against: the braiding of hair, the putting on of gold jewelry, and the wearing of clothes. If we read that passage in a wooden way, it would
prohibit wearing clothes. But, of course, that is not the point. The point is that the clothes shouldn’t be the main thing. And, likewise, the braided hair shouldn’t be the main thing (or whatever way you fix your hair). And the gold jewelry shouldn’t be the
main thing (or whatever other kind of jewelry you might wear). Do you see the point? It’s not to strictly prohibit a certain kind of hair-do or specific kinds of jewelry. The point is that your outward appearance should not be the focus of your life. That’s not the
most important thing. That’s not what you should be known for. Instead, what you should be known for is your Christexalting life. In the passage I just read from 1 Peter, it says, “let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’ sight is very precious.” And in our passage for this morning, Paul says that women should adorn themselves “with what is proper for
women who profess godliness—with good works.”

The above was from a friend. I've often considered... IF Paul was prohibiting something to the Church of Ephesus, I don't believe he was, but IF he was, what does that mean? We STILL would need to know what the situation was, why it needed addressing, what the specific prohibition was (and meant) and then determine it's contemporary application (actually about 20 other steps before that). In other words... If the conehead veil was a modern piece of art in Paul's day, the symbolized one's affiliation with the cult, and Paul said "women, do not wear a conehead veil" (I have no clue what a 'conehead veil' is by the way, serves the illustration) we could take it centuries later to mean that women should never wear a "conehead veil." The reality is the "conehead veil" was a specific time in a specific location and because it had a specific meaning. In Ephesus, it has been discovered time and again the issues of the poor and rich. We do a disservice to the Text to forget the historical context (or not even bother with it) of what was going on and what this broided hair, pearls and gold were referring to. Anyone who insists to read these documents as "clear and plain" has shown nothing but contempt and irresponsibility with approaching documents of antiquity.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

It seems that Timothy was having some issues in his churches in terms of what was going on during the worship service...He had already talked of the need for prayer for other leaders, and then he seems to get specific. Apparently the men were fighting, and the woman were trying to draw inappropriate attention to themselves.

A modern-time Epistle:

"Women, I've heard there are some problems with some of you flaunting yourselves around at worship. You have forgotten what true godliness should be -- not with fancy prom dresses, shopping sprees and elaborate hairstyles, but appropriateness, gentleness and all things in love as well as good conduct."

All of Paul's comments are in a one-two-three punch, in the flow of appropriateness at worship. He gives a few words to the men, and then says "likewise," transitioning the subject to the women.

Paul states it positively first, and then negatively. He then says, “not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire.” The question comes up here, Is it a sin to braid your hair or to wear jewelry? I don’t think that’s the point of Paul’s statement. And the reason I think that is the similar passage in 1 Peter 3:3-4, which says, “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the
imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’ sight is very precious.” Notice what Peter speaks against: the braiding of hair, the putting on of gold jewelry, and the wearing of clothes. If we read that passage in a wooden way, it would
prohibit wearing clothes. But, of course, that is not the point. The point is that the clothes shouldn’t be the main thing. And, likewise, the braided hair shouldn’t be the main thing (or whatever way you fix your hair). And the gold jewelry shouldn’t be the
main thing (or whatever other kind of jewelry you might wear). Do you see the point? It’s not to strictly prohibit a certain kind of hair-do or specific kinds of jewelry. The point is that your outward appearance should not be the focus of your life. That’s not the
most important thing. That’s not what you should be known for. Instead, what you should be known for is your Christexalting life. In the passage I just read from 1 Peter, it says, “let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’ sight is very precious.” And in our passage for this morning, Paul says that women should adorn themselves “with what is proper for
women who profess godliness—with good works.”

The above was from a friend. I've often considered... IF Paul was prohibiting something to the Church of Ephesus, I don't believe he was, but IF he was, what does that mean? We STILL would need to know what the situation was, why it needed addressing, what the specific prohibition was (and meant) and then determine it's contemporary application (actually about 20 other steps before that). In other words... If the conehead veil was a modern piece of art in Paul's day, the symbolized one's affiliation with the cult, and Paul said "women, do not wear a conehead veil" (I have no clue what a 'conehead veil' is by the way, serves the illustration) we could take it centuries later to mean that women should never wear a "conehead veil." The reality is the "conehead veil" was a specific time in a specific location and because it had a specific meaning. In Ephesus, it has been discovered time and again the issues of the poor and rich. We do a disservice to the Text to forget the historical context (or not even bother with it) of what was going on and what this broided hair, pearls and gold were referring to. Anyone who insists to read these documents as "clear and plain" has shown nothing but contempt and irresponsibility with approaching documents of antiquity.

All of that to render the text ineffective? Why not just believe the Bible Jeffrey? Does your cultural hypothesis also go for I Tim. 3:16? Was that just something for Ephesus to consider also? What about Paul's teachings on faith/repentance? Just for Ephesus...right? The context of chp. 2:9 has to do w/ the decorative ornamentation...which has a "not" inextricably tied to it. See the HCSB, NLT, etc....could not be plainer. Honestly, it's beyond me how in the world you cannot understand this. You seem to possess some educational skills...but apparently not enough !

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

All of that to render the text ineffective? Why not just believe the Bible Jeffrey? Does your cultural hypothesis also go for I Tim. 3:16? Was that just something for Ephesus to consider also? What about Paul's teachings on faith/repentance? Just for Ephesus...right? The context of chp. 2:9 has to do w/ the decorative ornamentation...which has a "not" inextricably tied to it. See the HCSB, NLT, etc....could not be plainer. Honestly, it's beyond me how in the world you cannot understand this. You seem to possess some educational skills...but apparently not enough !

Well, I tried.

You failed to consider rationally another opinion and instead tell me I just need to "believe the Bible." Laughable. Hey, Mr. RDP, I DO believe the Bible. That's exactly what we've been discussing the last 100 pages.

I have no time or desire to continue this meddling. Go on living your life happy and with good conscience, I'll do the same.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Well, I tried.

You failed to consider rationally another opinion and instead tell me I just need to "believe the Bible." Laughable. Hey, Mr. RDP, I DO believe the Bible. That's exactly what we've been discussing the last 100 pages.

I have no time or desire to continue this meddling. Go on living your life happy and with good conscience, I'll do the same.

Sounds good to me...God will be the Judge in the end. As for me & my house, we will believe Scripture, which we've been discussing for 65 [not 100] pages now. Looks like you have problems counting as well as reading !

[Jeffrey]

So the first argument is immediate meaning and applied meaning. The argument that Paul is not issuing a universal edict prohibiting the wearing of jewelry.

The second, is the argument of canonical inconsistency. There has never been such a prohibition in scripture.

Canaanite and Israelite men and women wore jewelry and cosmetics. The reasons were personal beautification (even seen int he prieslty costumes), currency, evidence of wealth (this is a different meaning for jewelry than we have today, although in some extremes there's some similarities), symbol of social status (unique to Ancient Near East culture -- an example would be Saul's attire as King) and finally religious function. Jewlelry had religious significance in the ANE. It identified the religious beliefs or position of the wearer, such as the Israelite High Priest. Some ascribed supernatural powers to their religious jewels/amulets. It is commonly taught, even among the Jews, that it is these amulets, religious jewels that are condemned as idolatry in Isa 3:16-21. Finally, jewelry was sometimes used as an offering to the gods to be placed on their images or temples. Israelites even did this in Numbers 31:50.

That's the ANE, now here's some research from Greco-Roman culture:

There are many similarities between the Greco-Roman world and the ANE. Perhaps this explains why there is less information about the use of jewelry in New Testament times than in Old Testament times. We do know that jewelry was common in the Roman Empire. The Oxford History of the Classical World has this to say:

The wearing of excessive jewellery [sic] was a practice which [Roman] legislators had long since given up trying to curb, though moralists still condemned it. Pliny rails against women who wore pearls on their fingers, on their earrings, and on their slippers, and reports with disapproval how Caligula's first Empress, Lollia Paulina, turned up to a feast wearing emeralds and pearls on her head, hair, ears, neck, and fingers.[27]

It continues, noting that rings were very common. Men wore rings as signets, while women wore them to signify engagement.[28] In fact, it seems that the Romans invented the engagement ring.[29] Rings in the Roman Empire are particularly interesting. At various times, different types of rings were used to signify social status—slave or free, citizen or non-citizen, aristocrat or commoner. These rules were enforced by law, but were gradually relaxed as more people wanted to be able to wear fancier rings.[30]

Because the Greco-Roman world was a pagan society, Jewelry in this time doubtless functioned in much the same way as it did in the ANE with regard to its religious aspects. It probably was accorded supernatural powers and used as protection from evil or a method to persuade the gods to act in a certain way.


To be continued...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

So the first argument is immediate meaning and applied meaning. The argument that Paul is not issuing a universal edict prohibiting the wearing of jewelry.

Assumptions into the text, never stated by the same!

The second, is the argument of canonical inconsistency. There has never been such a prohibition in scripture.

Contrare Monfrare...Deut. 7:25, Ex. 33, Gen. 35, Is. 3, I Tim. 2, I Ptr. 3, etc. Next....

Canaanite and Israelite men and women wore jewelry and cosmetics.

They also sacrificed babies to pagan gods...should we now follow that example also? Remember that bit about "consistency"? BTW, God repeatedly chided them for their ornamentation [Ex. 33, Is. 3 , etc.].

The reasons were personal beautification (even seen int he prieslty costumes), currency, evidence of wealth (this is a different meaning for jewelry than we have today, although in some extremes there's some similarities), symbol of social status (unique to Ancient Near East culture -- an example would be Saul's attire as King) and finally religious function.

All of which serve as the exact reason Paul & Peter forbid it in the NT....next....

Jewlelry had religious significance in the ANE. It identified the religious beliefs or position of the wearer, such as the Israelite High Priest. Some ascribed supernatural powers to their religious jewels/amulets. It is commonly taught, even among the Jews, that it is these amulets, religious jewels that are condemned as idolatry in Isa 3:16-21. Finally, jewelry was sometimes used as an offering to the gods to be placed on their images or temples. Israelites even did this in Numbers 31:50.

Appealling to the Jews now are we? Then appeal to the Othodox Jews as well. How much decorative ornamentation do they wear? Regardless, they are not the NT church, or the temple of God. Go to your Governors house & try to decorate it. It's not your house...& if you've been water & Spirit baptized in Jesus' Name...neither is your body; you've been bought w/ a price.

That's the ANE, now here's some research from Greco-Roman culture:

There are many similarities between the Greco-Roman world and the ANE. Perhaps this explains why there is less information about the use of jewelry in New Testament times than in Old Testament times. We do know that jewelry was common in the Roman Empire. The Oxford History of the Classical World has this to say:

The wearing of excessive jewellery [sic] was a practice which [Roman] legislators had long since given up trying to curb, though moralists still condemned it. Pliny rails against women who wore pearls on their fingers, on their earrings, and on their slippers, and reports with disapproval how Caligula's first Empress, Lollia Paulina, turned up to a feast wearing emeralds and pearls on her head, hair, ears, neck, and fingers.[27]

It continues, noting that rings were very common. Men wore rings as signets, while women wore them to signify engagement.[28] In fact, it seems that the Romans invented the engagement ring.[29] Rings in the Roman Empire are particularly interesting. At various times, different types of rings were used to signify social status—slave or free, citizen or non-citizen, aristocrat or commoner. These rules were enforced by law, but were gradually relaxed as more people wanted to be able to wear fancier rings.[30]

Because the Greco-Roman world was a pagan society, Jewelry in this time doubtless functioned in much the same way as it did in the ANE with regard to its religious aspects. It probably was accorded supernatural powers and used as protection from evil or a method to persuade the gods to act in a certain way.


To be continued...

Nice concession above regarding the Roman influence of rings! Only furthers my point...will you also embrace their "trinity" doctrine? Why not, since apparently the Bible itself is not authoritative enough!