Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

[b][color="DarkRed"]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]!

What I want to R-E-A-D VERY SLOWLY is your answer to the question: Why would God use an unholy picture to illustrate a holy act? No fancy footwork involved. Answer THAT question and not questions i never asked. lol

I want to R-E-A-D very slowly this sort of statement: "God used an unholy picture of wearing jewelry and even giving jewelry to His lady to illustrate a holy act of His love BECAUSE _____________ ."

I promise to R-E-A-D it VERY slowly, too, because it will shock me so much to think you actually answered my oft-repeated question instead of dodging it several dozen times over 114 pages! For goodness' sake, I will FRAME YOUR ANSWER WHEN I GET IT!

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What I want to R-E-A-D VERY SLOWLY is your answer to the question: Why would God use an unholy picture to illustrate a holy act? No fancy footwork involved. Answer THAT question and not questions i never asked. lol

Even the church is refered to as a bride adorned for her husband.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Even the church is refered to as a bride adorned for her husband.

Right. With Rebekah, jewelry was a gift on behalf of Isaac.

Genesis 24:22 And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold;

Quite a bit of GOLD! The servant cast a fleece out before God saying that if he offers a woman to let down her pitcher to drink, and she responds saying, "Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also," then he would know that God sent the woman to him. And God sent this woman to a man who was going to give her a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold. Funny how God would answer such a prayer from a man who was bound to give this woman all that gold, and lead a woman to him, if RDP is correct! One would think the last man to whom God would send Rebekah would be a guy who was to give her all of that ungodly gold! And that ain't no illustration, but an actual event!

So maybe RDP is not only going to keep insisting that we cannot take an unholy illustration used for a holy act to override a NT instruction (although in reality there is nothing unholy about any of this), but will also try to tell us that we cannot take an actual event, that was considered acceptable amongst the OT patriarchs of Israel, and override a NT instruction that claims such things were actually unholy (when in reality such a stance betrays an ignorant misinterpretation of all Paul and Peter stated to begin with!).

The context in 1 Peter 3 is a woman told to not depend on ornamentation to win her husband. That does not mean a woman cannot wear those things in modest amounts, though. The same general note is used in 1 Tim 2:9. A woman is not to depend upon jewelry for showing Christian character. Many women wear jewelry without depending upon it as their character identification. Good works are noted in verse 10 as that which should rather be what she depends upon to show she is a Christian. These works do not save her, but testify that she is saved.

Those who forbid the wearing of these things totally are missing the context of both chapters which is showing dependence on jewelry for (1) winning their lost husbands to the Lord(1 Pet 3), and (2) showing forth their Christian character (1 Tim 2). It is not just simple forbiddance to wear anything in the form of jewelry.

Rebekah's story continues with being called BLESSED when her jewelry from Isaac and Abraham were seen.

Genesis 24:30-31 And it came to pass, when he saw the earring and bracelets upon his sister's hands, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying, Thus spake the man unto me; that he came unto the man; and, behold, he stood by the camels at the well. (31) And he said, Come in, thou blessed of the LORD; wherefore standest thou without? for I have prepared the house, and room for the camels.

Therefore, two witnesses of scripture (Ezekiel 16 and Gen 24) show All sorts of these "UNHOLY PICTURES" to show holy love and God's will for a couple to be married. Then there is your reference, Truthseeker. There should be NO pictures of wearing jewelry to represent anything holy whatsoever if RDP is correct. It is ridiculous to think God uses unholy pictures to illustrate holy acts.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Well if I ask you to answer why God would use an unholy picture to illustrate a holy act, and all you do is ask me about other instances aside from this one, or say we cannot override plain teaching, that means you never answered my actual question. That is no debate tactic./ lol.

Imagine:

DEBATER A: My dear opponent, why do you believe there are aliens?

DEBATER B: Why do you think there are fish in the sea?

DEBATER A: You did not answer my question.

DEBATER B: There you go using debate tactics saying I did not answer your question.

I did not know that addressing your refusal to answer my question saying, "You did not answer my question," was a debate tactic. lol

Sorry. You responded with things I never asked about instead. It is not debate tactic. The debate tactic would be more like what you are doing in avoiding my actual question.



READING SLOWLY did not help me find your explanation as to why God would use an unholy act to illustrate a holy act. Sorry. I read it ten times, and still could not find your answer.

Do not show me what else God did. Show me why God would use an unholy picture to illustrate a holy thing.



I answered that issue by showing you your logic fails. Animal sacrifices were ONLY WRONG SINCE THE CROSS, not before. And the CROSS made the difference. You are not saying that about the jewelry.



You cannot answer my question with some reference to my alleged bias or inconsistency. Answering my question is answering my question. Why would God use an unholy act to illustrate a holy act?



Just admit you cannot answer it if you can't. When Jesus answered questions with questions, His questions provided the answer they were looking for. You did not do that. Do not compare yourself to Jesus as though asking you questions is like asking Him questions, by the way. lol

Your answers are for questions like, "In what instances does it appear that God used apparent wrongdoing?" That is not asking "Why did God use wrongdoing to illustrate a holy act?"



Why do you continue to repeat something that does not answer my question? You are only proving my point. It is not whether metaphorical verses override NT instruction or not, but whether or not metaphorical verses contradict NT instructions. The fact is God would not use a metaphor that would conflict with anything taught in the NT. He would not use an unclean picture to illustrate a holy act. That means your interpretation of the NT instruction is not correct, whether you insist you are getting the plain reading or not.



You've dealt with it, sure. But without actually answering my question at all. When will you answer it directly? If I ask you for the age of Adam, do not answer me with the age of Methuselah. lol



What do you mean "OUTSIDE OF THE TEXT"? I quoted a historian's account, who quoted Josephus in his writing. It had nothing to do with the question of jewelry. It was written about the temple. It proved you wrong about the temple. So?



You are leaping through hoops of reasoning in attempts to avoid answering my question. THAT is using debate tactics, which I think are dishonest, personally.

When will you answer why God would use an unholy picture to illustrate a holy act? If I was going all around the issue and asking you all sorts of OTHER questions aside from the one single question you asked, you would be having a royal fit.

So let's waste no more bandwidth and have you answer that ONE SIMPLE QUESTION.

Ho-Hum....'round & 'round she goes. So, in other words, you cannot answer my question about the "preacher" decked out in brilliant stones, fine linen, etc......then you're TALKING TO ME about "not answering" ?? You're question is loaded, which is why I won't take the bait! Try again Mike....I've been at this for a "few" years & recognize begging the question when I see it.

You dance around the OT sacrifices w/ all of your fancy footwork, but when you're finished explaining away....you still have something that God approved of in the OT...that He staunchly DISAPPROVES in the NT. God also approved killing/vengeance in the OT, but is that a "holy act" today Mike? Ho-Hum...more inconsistency from the Mike dug-out!

What you don't realize is that we're given more in the NT....so more is required of us in the NT. Besides, while you're appealling to the OT for "approval" of ornamentation, then does the same OT also condemn ornamentation? Yep'....Is. 3, Deut. 7, Gen. 35, Ex. 33, etc., etc. When will you ever be consistent Mike...it's quite liberating from the opinions of men! So, I guess since you can't answer my question about the preacher in the brilliant stones, fine linen, etc....I'll just assume you don't have one! Check back Mon.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Right. With Rebekah, jewelry was a gift on behalf of Isaac.

Genesis 24:22 And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold;

Quite a bit of GOLD! The servant cast a fleece out before God saying that if he offers a woman to let down her pitcher to drink, and she responds saying, "Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also," then he would know that God sent the woman to him. And God sent this woman to a man who was going to give her a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold. Funny how God would answer such a prayer from a man who was bound to give this woman all that gold, and lead a woman to him, if RDP is correct! One would think the last man to whom God would send Rebekah would be a guy who was to give her all of that ungodly gold! And that ain't no illustration, but an actual event!

So maybe RDP is not only going to keep insisting that we cannot take an unholy illustration used for a holy act to override a NT instruction (although in reality there is nothing unholy about any of this), but will also try to tell us that we cannot take an actual event, that was considered acceptable amongst the OT patriarchs of Israel, and override a NT instruction that claims such things were actually unholy (when in reality such a stance betrays an ignorant misinterpretation of all Paul and Peter stated to begin with!).

The context in 1 Peter 3 is a woman told to not depend on ornamentation to win her husband. That does not mean a woman cannot wear those things in modest amounts, though. The same general note is used in 1 Tim 2:9. A woman is not to depend upon jewelry for showing Christian character. Many women wear jewelry without depending upon it as their character identification. Good works are noted in verse 10 as that which should rather be what she depends upon to show she is a Christian. These works do not save her, but testify that she is saved.

Those who forbid the wearing of these things totally are missing the context of both chapters which is showing dependence on jewelry for (1) winning their lost husbands to the Lord(1 Pet 3), and (2) showing forth their Christian character (1 Tim 2). It is not just simple forbiddance to wear anything in the form of jewelry.

Rebekah's story continues with being called BLESSED when her jewelry from Isaac and Abraham were seen.

Genesis 24:30-31 And it came to pass, when he saw the earring and bracelets upon his sister's hands, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying, Thus spake the man unto me; that he came unto the man; and, behold, he stood by the camels at the well. (31) And he said, Come in, thou blessed of the LORD; wherefore standest thou without? for I have prepared the house, and room for the camels.

Therefore, two witnesses of scripture (Ezekiel 16 and Gen 24) show All sorts of these "UNHOLY PICTURES" to show holy love and God's will for a couple to be married. Then there is your reference, Truthseeker. There should be NO pictures of wearing jewelry to represent anything holy whatsoever if RDP is correct. It is ridiculous to think God uses unholy pictures to illustrate holy acts.

Wow...all of this to strip "not with gold jewelry" of its meaning? How about just believing the Bible Mike?

[Truthseeker]

How bout both you just answer each others question?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Ho-Hum....'round & 'round she goes.

Is this guy for real?

lol

Seriously, is your last name Prince? (I ask that in all seriousness.)

Someone let me know when my question is answered.

You're question is loaded, which is why I won't take the bait! Try again Mike....I've been at this for a "few" years & recognize begging the question when I see it.

Loaded? You need to have an explanation as to why God would illustrate a holy thing with an unholy picture if you are going to argue your point. There is nothing loaded about that.

So, I guess since you can't answer my question about the preacher in the brilliant stones, fine linen, etc....I'll just assume you don't have one!

I already answered that. I said the picture requires a WOMAN to make a comparison, not a man. I said nothing was wrong with a woman doing that.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

How bout both you just answer each others question?

Surely you jest. I've been answering, but will also answer anything, and simply want this one question answered. Really!

[Cindy]

It gives me a mind-ache when I read some posts on this thread.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Cindy

It gives me a mind-ache when I read some posts on this thread.

lol. Right. It is quite a simple thing, really. But when tradition makes folks refuse to accept the obvious, they'll will jump through a million hoops to distract themselves away from the simplicity of the issue in order to retain that obviously wrong tradition. And then they will never answer such a simple question, but throw out a million distracting questions and complain why no one answers them. Also, for folks to say they will not answer a simple question because it is "loaded" is to simply indicate their answer would speak against their own belief! Pride will do that when it comes to retaining traditions!

At least I gave answers, and I believe they directly solved the questions. But here we have a person ADMITTING THEY WILL NOT ANSWER.

Originally Posted by rdp

You're question is loaded, which is why I won't take the bait!

While accused of appealing to the Old Testament to approve of jewelry, which is as much part of the WORD OF GOD as the New, let me quote from the New and show costly apparel and jewelry used to denote a good thing as well.

Luke 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

It was said the Old Testament animal sacrifices were looked upon as approved during the old times but sinful in the New Testament, as though to set a pattern that things approved at one time can be considered sinful later. That is insane. Animal sacrifices were NEVER SINFUL, and neither are they sinful now. They are USELESS NOW. Not sinful. The sin is not in offering an animal sacrifice but in NEGLECTING CHRIST'S SACRIFICE. RDP cannot wrap his mind around the fact that the CROSS rendered animal sacrifices that were COMMANDED BY GOD AND SAID TO BE "HOLY" as unnecessary once Christ died. Changing sacrificial systems is NOTHING SIMILAR to approving of jewelry and then saying it is wicked later. Changing sacrifices that could never remit sins and causing them to stop because a perfect sacrifice came can only be compared to jewelry, to be consistent, if a GREAT JEWEL WAS WORN ONCE AND FOR ALL SO THAT NO ONE ELSE SHOULD EVER WEAR THEM! lol And that is stupid.

Jewelry was not even considered as wicked and wrong and evil as RDP says it was anyway! And he does this at the expense of making God look like a fool rather than admit his tradition is wrong!

If anyone considers my question carefully, they would see it solves everything. People cannot answer it if they think jewelry is wrong. But to realize inability to answer it shows a false tradition for what it really is, it answers everything! WHY WOULD GOD USE AN UNHOLY ILLUSTRATION TO REPRESENT A HOLY ACT IN EZEKIEL 16? WHAT WAS GOD'S REASONING? That question would change any wavering mind to know the truth of the matter that Paul and Peter were not saying wearing jewelry was sinful, but to not depend on it for winning lost husbands or showing Christian character. Period. For that reason, those promoting the false doctrine of forbiddance of jewelry CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

Watch and note that NONE OF THEM WILL ANSWER IT. (The reasons will be humourous, to be sure.)