Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are still avoiding my point. It does not matter how many times you responded to Ezek 16, it matters if you are addressing our specific question: WHY WOULD GOD USE AN UNHOLY PICTURE TO ILLUSTRATE A HOLY ACT? You've done everything but directly answer that question.

Type 114 more pages of responses and never actually answer this single and simple question. But do not say you already answered it.


The point is what you think is plainness is incorrect, which is evident in your continued inability to answer this one simple question. Until you can answer this one question, I see no reason to believe your interpretation and alleged plain reading of the NT passages is correct, and nobody has helped me see it your way.

In my estimation GOD WOULD NEVER USE AN UNHOLY PICTURE TO ILLUSTRATE A HOLY THING OR ACT. Sorry, cannot get around that.

So, your interpretation that demands that picture be unholy shows your interpretation of Paul and Peter to be wrong. What you think is plain instruction is wrong. And until you or SOMEONE answers this question, I have not received an answer, and will never accept your idea that Peter and Paul meant what YOU CLAIM they meant. The fact that you are saying everything except the answer to this question shows me your idea of standards is error.

Oh brother...are you suuuuuure you're not a closet trinitarian? You use the same debate tactics they do: "You're not answering my question, You're avoiding the question". Hey, if it makes you feel better go right ahead!

Sooooo, let's try this again for Mike. R-E-A-D slowly here: God also used animal sacrifices as an Holy thing [i.e., w/out blemish], yet in the NT you disallow it by your own admission [minus all of your fancy footwork]! So, be consistent Mike & start teaching animal sacrifices for sin...do you dare? I H-A-V-E answered your question by demonstrating your inconsistency & jewelry bias'. Jesus answered questions w/ his own questions....but, I guess you would've stomped your foot at Him too & said, "You're not answering"! Not to mention how many times I've demonstrated that metaphorical verses do NOT override literal NT instructions to the church...such as "N-O-T W-I-T-H G-O-L-D J-E-W-L-R-Y.....". When you're finished wearing out your eraser...it'll still be there! You're a hoot Mike...........

Now, since I've dealt w/ your question [for about the 3rd time now], let's try this again Mike: Since you appeal to Josephus's description [nice appeal OUTSIDE of the text by the way!] of Herod's temple & Ezek. 16...tell us, would you have aproblem w/ a preacher being "decked" out in brilliant stones & plates of gold, w/ a $1,000 suit on, teaching you about "modesty/temperance," Yes or No:__________? If no, then why did you say earlier that I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3 are referring to the "elaborate," then turn around & appeal to Ezek. 16???? If yes, then you're position crumbles by default! It's called "consistency" Mike...oughta' try it out sometime!