Isaiah 3 and jewelry... - Page 26

rdp · #**251** 07-12-2010, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What's your experience with the Koine Greek? PhD from Southern Easter University? Along with LS?

You'll have a hair more luck with your egalitarian viewpoints than you will with your anti-jewlery prohibitions. Good luck finding scholarship that agrees with your expert Greek explanations. Spare us.

Man you guys never cease to amaze me. This is exactly why I rarely even post on here anymore.

Ughhh, you'll find many scholarly quotes that agree w/ both of my positions, since I'm very careful to allow the text to define itself & do my research. Oughta' give it a try sometime Jeffrey! The Word is what will judge you in eternity after all.

rdp · #**252** 07-12-2010, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

(roll eyes)

No matter what you argue the passages away with, God uses symbolism of jewelry to show that what He actually did, which was not with literal jewelry, was IN HIS EYES jewelry. He would not use ADULTERY to symbolize anything He did to show His love for Israel, like He sued Jewelry, because adultery is sinful. No one made anything LITERAL. Everyone has the grain of sense it takes to know Ezek 16 is speaking symbolically. BUT God would not use a sinful symbol to show his PURE and HOLY love for anyone, showing that wearing of jewelry is not sinful.

What is so ironic, is that the legalism behind self effort in standard keeping, that you abide by, produces a self righteous harshness reminiscent of the pharisees. All have noticed your arrogance, even those who agree with your standards. Your attitude speaks so loud we cannot hear you.

Okay then Mike, neither would God reference Jewelry in connection w/ harlotry if it was soooo pleasing to Him. Why does He repeatedly connect it to harlotry? Will you apply the same criteria to Jer. 4:30, Ezek. 23:40, as you do your other pet verses? I doubt it.

Final analysis: God repeatedly condems the literal ornamentation of His people in both the OT & NT.

mfblume · #**253** 07-12-2010, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Okay then Mike, neither would God reference Jewelry in connection w/ harlotry if it was soooo pleasing to Him. Why does He repeatedly connect it to harlotry?

Simple! If it is USED by harlots, then a notion of harlotry can be implemented in the thought of jewelry. But the obvious case is that it is not restricted to harlotry. Rebekkah wore jewelry. Was she a harlot? Why would God use harlotry's emblems for showing love for His bride? Can you answer that? You answer a question with a question, which is no answer at all.

Quote:

Will you apply the same criteria to Jer. 4:30, Ezek. 23:40, as you do your other pet verses? I doubt it.

Final analysis: God repeatedly condems the literal ornamentation of His people in both the OT & NT.

And He repeatedly affirms the acceptance of jewelry in other places. Your criteria is limited to that which is less than God limits it. In some cases it is wrong, in others it is not wrong. Simple! It may be HOW it is used! Ever think of that?

Jeffrey · #**254** 07-12-2010, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

"No need for insertions of grammar and pronouns...", SAY WHAT????? I think my eyes almost bugged out of my head! I didn't "insert" the grammar...the Holy Spirit did! Jeffrey, you should know that Theology is to be based upon the grammar of the texts.

And, yes, I'd say your wife is in violence of God-breathed Scripture. God will be her judge [& yours] in eternity. In fact, I've repeatedly turned down church after church because of their rebellion in the wedding ring matter.

Again, you can't see the forest for the trees. Instead you carry a sword of judgement in your hand and continue your offensive. Your hyperliteralism is reminiscent of another group that focused in so hard at the pixels of details that they failed to ever see the picture. And the fact is, when you turn yourself red over a pixel, convincing yourself what the picture is, I'd imagine it can be quite frustrating.

Holy Spirit inserted the grammar? You just prove you're not following a thing I'm saying. Point-being: there was no need to do a grammar query on a word that had no bearing on the overall purpose, intent and meaning of the verse you used. For you to judge my wife and I, and the majority of Christianity on the wedding band issue is sickening. What is it in your heart that almost has a thrill in this matter?

Back to the argument at hand, your evidence is flimsey and is only believed by gross distortion and ignorant insistence on things meaning something they are not.

Jeffrey · #**255** 07-12-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

As usual, you do not respond to my arguments regarding Ezek. 23:40, Jer. 4:30, etc. Hmmm, God also uses jewlery as a figure of harlotry. Why would he use something that he approves of in such a horrible sense? Cuts both ways Jeffrey! Now what, back to the text, which repeatedly condemns the literal ornamentation of His people...in both the OT & NT.

Sorry Charlie, try again!

You're pointing out that it "cuts both ways" is exactly my point, genius. It's not the jewelry that is the issue. He surely wasn't adorning His church like a hooker.

You have no text condemning God's people wearing jewels. I have more supporting them wearing them without God's condemnation. You are lost in a fog of your own judgmentalism, left to defend teachings you inherited years ago on a defeated and shrinking battlefield.

Jeffrey · #**256** 07-12-2010, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Say what?? And I'M the one w/ my head where it doesn't belong?? Reeeeeeeeeeeal "Christian" language, by the way! I know, I know, refuse to look at yourself & attack me right?

Typical spirit of the liberal.........

lol I knew you'd like that. And in classic deference, you didn't even acknowledge the argument I presented.

I enjoy colorful language from time to time. Will you condemn me for that too?

What's unChristian is your sickening arrogance and judgementalism on this thread. It sort of tuns people off. But I guess that's the only way to maintain your own argument. A defense of sorts for you.

Jeffrey · #**257** 07-12-2010, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Man you guys never cease to amaze me. This is exactly why I rarely even post on here anymore.

Ughhh, you'll find many scholarly quotes that agree w/ both of my positions, since I'm very careful to allow the text to define itself & do my research. Oughta' give it a try sometime Jeffrey! The Word is what will judge you in eternity after all.

Prove it. State them. Show them.

I've spent considerable time in New Testament theology and haven't found a single scholar yet to view the two NT texts (which you've hijacked) as carte blanche prohibitions on jewelry. So please direct me to the right way.

mfblume · #**258** 07-12-2010, 04:11 PM

The attitude we are witnessing goes with pharisaism consistently. You will not see a pharisee without it. It is a spirit, and not a good one.

rdp · #**259** 07-12-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Simple! If it is USED by harlots, then a notion of harlotry can be implemented in the thought of jewelery. But the obvious case is that it is not restricted to harlotry. Rebekkah wore jewelry. Was she a harlot? Why would God use harlotry's emblems for showing love for His bride? Can you answer that?

And He repeatedly affirms the acceptance of jewelry in other places. Your criteria is limited to that which is less than God limits it. In some cases it is wrong, in others it is not wrong. Simple! It may be HOW it is used! Ever think of that?

Contrare' Monfrare...The Ol' Rebekah excuse. Mike have you ever realized that in Rebekah's time jewelry was not a problem for his people, but as time progressed God began to show His disapproval w/ it?? "Put O-F-F [not 'ON'] thy ornaments, that I may know what to do w/ you."

Your logical fallacy is called the "Fallacy of Neglected Aspect." That is, you present one-sided arguments, all the while ignoring the other side. To make matters worse, most of the arguments that you foster are extracted from figurative passages, which as we've seen, cuts both ways!. When it comes to the literal condemnation of jewelry, you simply sweep it under the rug. Sorry Charlie...ain't happenin' here!

Be back tommorrow....forced to run for the day! Should have more time tommorrow.

Jeffrey · #**260** 07-12-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Simple! If it is USED by harlots, then a notion of harlotry can be implemented in the thought of jewelry. But the obvious case is that it is not restricted to harlotry. Rebekkah wore jewelry. Was she a harlot? Why would God use harlotry's emblems for showing love for His bride? Can you answer that? You answer a question with a question, which is no answer at all.

And He repeatedly affirms the acceptance of jewelry in other places. Your criteria is limited to that which is less than God limits it. In some cases it is wrong, in others it is not wrong. Simple! It may be HOW it is used! Ever think of that?

Crickets from RDP