Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Wouldn't you say though that those who believe the standards are the weaker brothers? That they have not found the 'revelation' of what true grace is? I can't see putting modest apparel up there with the personal convictions of Romans that Paul speaks about.

I would think that the ones CHAMPIONING standards consider themselves to be examples of truth/convictions and are highly offended at those not sharing their same convictions (ie; grace). In that sense they are the "weaker brothers" because of their spiritual immaturity.
I have heard this tack used to create guilt in those with liberty in Christ by creating the straw man argument that we ought not "offend" our weaker brethren. Have you found this to be the case?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

So you agree with this????

You misunderstand me above, just as you apparently do Paul's instructions in I Tim. 2 [including the part against women "preachers"], "N-O-T with gold jewelry, pearls, or costly apparel." This is what you folks attempt to explain away. Does this mean what it says?

Put your eraser down, it'll still be there in eternity.......this is precisely why I rarely even check in this forum any more. It's hard to take the libs seriously.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

That's because he isn't being logical. It's egregiously reading into the text to assume that the scripture indicating two men coming "unto your assembly" means they are unbelievers attending for the first time.

The scriptures following verse 2 stay with the context of rich vs. poor. They don't indicate in any sense that the man's "vile" clothing is anything other than dirty, cheap or shabby. Verse 6 addresses the fact that "ye have despised the poor" and reminds them of why they shouldn't favor the rich. "...rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats...[and] blaspheme that worthy name...."

This passage has nothing to do with condemning gold rings or goodly [magnificent or sumptuous] apparel. Nor do they condemn "vile" clothing. (Clothing that is dirty, cheap or shabby.) It has everything to do with teaching Christians not to show favoritism.

You apparently overlooked the translation "vile" in Rom. 1 of this same Greek word. I suppose that early "Christians" were now partaking of "vileness"???

Why do I even waste my time here.................goodbye............rdp.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

You misunderstand me above, just as you apparently do Paul's instructions in I Tim. 2 [including the part against women "preachers"], "N-O-T with gold jewelry, pearls, or costly apparel." This is what you folks attempt to explain away. Does this mean what it says?

I'm not a preacher. What does that have to do with this conversation? This isn't a church; it's the equivalent of dinner table conversation.

I agree that modesty includes not being extravagant, and I Timothy 2 makes the point that behavior (good works) is a greater adornment than extravagant jewelry or clothes. I agree with that take as a principle; I don't agree that it means literally that wearing jewelry or beautiful clothing is sinful.

I have trouble taking some people seriously, too. See? We have some common ground.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

You apparently overlooked the translation "vile" in Rom. 1 of this same Greek word. I suppose that early "Christians" were now partaking of "vileness"???

No, I didn't overlook it. But context is as important to the definition as the, well, definition. Since the meaning of "vile" can mean "dirty, cheap, shabby, morally wicked or vile", then you have to use context to help decide which meaning fits the passage.

Since the verses following verse 2 repeatedly emphasis "poor" vs. "rich", it fits the context to assume that "vile raiment" means "dirty, cheap or shabby" which would be associated with someone poor. Nowhere in the passage does it indicate that the poor man is assumed to be wicked.

That isn't a liberal interpretation, rdp. Just because the word is used differently elsewhere doesn't mean it has to mean that everywhere in the NT. Your interpretation isn't even close to being accurate or logical.

Why do I even waste my time here.................goodbye............rdp.

Goodbye? Do you really mean that? I'm thinkin' you'll be back. lol

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm not a preacher. What does that have to do with this conversation? This isn't a church; it's the equivalent of dinner table conversation.

I agree that modesty includes not being extravagant, and I Timothy 2 makes the point that behavior (good works) is a greater adornment than extravagant jewelry or clothes. I agree with that take as a principle; I don't agree that it means literally that wearing jewelry or beautiful clothing is sinful.

I have trouble taking some people seriously, too. See? We have some common ground.

So you don't take Scripture "literally"??????? Remember that when you come to Acts 2:38. Hmmmmm.................selectivity will cause many to be lost.

[Maximilian]

Is rdp throwing a temper tantrum?

The Shawn Johnson of Exegesis -- flexible, stretchy and creative.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

No, I didn't overlook it. But context is as important to the definition as the, well, definition. Since the meaning of "vile" can mean "dirty, cheap, shabby, morally wicked or vile", then you have to use context to help decide which meaning fits the passage.

Since the verses following verse 2 repeatedly emphasis "poor" vs. "rich", it fits the context to assume that "vile raiment" means "dirty, cheap or shabby" which would be associated with someone poor. Nowhere in the passage does it indicate that the poor man is assumed to be wicked.

That isn't a liberal interpretation, rdp. Just because the word is used differently elsewhere doesn't mean it has to mean that everywhere in the NT. Your interpretation isn't even close to being accurate or logical.

If the word is used elsewhere in such a manner, then the manner is inherently included in the meaning, along w/ the other meanings of shabby, etc.! YOU are the one who apparently needs to do a little homework on etymology [word origins study]. The YOU wanna' school ME on what's not "accurate"?????



Goodbye? Do you really mean that? I'm thinkin' you'll be back. lol

Forgot that I said good-bye, so let me try it again & depart from liberal wonderland.....GOOD-BYE.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Is rdp throwing a temper tantrum?

The Shawn Johnson of Exegesis -- flexible, stretchy and creative.

Don't have to be too "creative" to comprehend "not with gold jewelry".....ya' just have to be able to read, which apparently requires quite a concerted effort on AFF!

"Strechy" indeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed!!

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by rdp

Forgot that I said good-bye, so let me try it again & depart from liberal wonderland.....GOOD-BYE.

And that's it? A year of back-and-forth, and MB has pressed you to the limit?

Those darn women preachers