Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

the matter of the heart indeed.. A holy Heart should eventually produce a Holy conversation

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Precisely. But the issue is that what some consider holy conversation is not really holy at all, but merely religiously traditional. Just because someone says lack of all jewelry is being holy, that does not mean we can say holiness involves forbiddence of jewelry. For God to use a picture of giving jewelry to His lady in order to stand as a metaphor for His love for Jerusalem, it is ridiculous to say God is against the wearing of jewelry. God would not use an unholy act to illustrate a holy act.

Can you answer why God would use an unholy picture like that in Ezek 16 in order to show His love for Israel, if you think wearing jewelry is unholy? See the dilemma?

Peter intended women to know that dependence upon jewelry, etc., to win an unsaved husband is not the answer, and Paul meant for us to know that dependence upon jewelry to show Christian character was likewise not the answer. Neither of them meant to never wear that sort of thing. Just do not rely on it for mistakenly intended results.

My answer would be that the failure of men is what catipulted Paul/Peter to list that women should adorn their hearts rather than gold, pearls, or costly array.

We know Christ does not condone murder of anyone now, but God did condone it for the heathen in the old testament.

I think with the changing of the convenants per say We do see a change of emphasis on lifestyle and such. For instance the priest in the OT wore splendid garments, which radiant stones. Jesus came wearing simple clothes and John the baptist wore only camel's hair.

I do not think one can say that because God condoned or allowed or even beautified jewelry in the old testament, that He cannot advised against it in the New.

These are my thoughts only. They do not represent UPCI or any other aforementioned groups, parties, or churches.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.



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.)

Wow....Mike affirms here that animal sacrifices are "useless now...NOT SINFUL"??? So it wouldn't be a sin to offer an animal sacrifice for my sins now Mike? And I'm supposed to take your "hemeneutic" serious????

And, if it makes you feel better to claim that I refuse "to answer" you...get after it. I've explained Ezek. 16 ad nauseum, but hey, if it makes you look better ! O', by the way, your assertion that to be decked out in jewelry would be okay for a woman is preposterous! Have ye not read "there is neither male nor female"????

More fancy footwork from the Mike corner...all to avoid the NT instructions "not with gold jewelry....". Put down your eraser Mike, it'll still be there in eternity!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Good brethren, thanks for all the input. Let me know if anyone answers why and how God would reason such a things as using unholy acts to illustrate holy ones (hint: HE WOULD NOT DO THAT Hmmm.. what does that imply?), for that is the crux of the matter and resolves the entire question. And until then I bid this thread adieu!

I agree with you , Godsdrummer.

Truthseeker, the angels wear gold as well -- the same thing!

Revelation 15:6 And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.

Ho-Hum...why am I not surprised. You're agreeing w/ "Godsdrummer" who constantly throws out the cultural card to render the verses that don't fit his lifestyle ineffective !

When did the Christ wear the gold...while on Earth, or in His glorified state:__________? "Hint," that's when His children will also wear gold crowns...but N-O-W we appear as He did; plain, no jewelry, etc. But T-H-E-N we shall receive a glorious body like unto His. You folks have much to learn.....seriously.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

You folks have much to learn.....seriously.

ho-hum

[Cindy]

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by rdp

When did the Christ wear the gold...while on Earth, or in His glorified state:__________? "Hint," that's when His children will also wear gold crowns...but N-O-W we appear as He did; plain, no jewelry, etc. But T-H-E-N we shall receive a glorious body like unto His. You folks have much to learn.....seriously.

Wow

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

My answer would be that the failure of men is what catipulted Paul/Peter to list that women should adorn their hearts rather than gold, pearls, or costly array.

But would you not agree that the context is showing what people depend upon for (in Peter's case) winning lost husbands, and (in Paul's case) showing Christian character? That is a far cry from saying no jewelry at all.

We know Christ does not condone murder of anyone now, but God did condone it for the heathen in the old testament.

Murder is not the same as what occurred in the Old Testament. Even Jesus said nothing about the Centurion's lifestyle in the military where men are killed in battle. While the Old Testament said THOU SHALT NOT KILL, God demanded war and death of enemies. It was no contradiction. Killing in war was not the point of killing in the Ten Commandments. And all of that was in the time of the one covenant. So there is no difference in the New Covenant with warfare, etc.., but it's only that warfare is not carried on by the church. Furthermore, there would not be a picture of God killing someone to show His love in the sense that He gives jewelery to illustrate His love.

I think with the changing of the convenants per say We do see a change of emphasis on lifestyle and such. For instance the priest in the OT wore splendid garments, which radiant stones. Jesus came wearing simple clothes and John the baptist wore only camel's hair.

But there is nothing specifically said about covenantal attire in the sense of priestly robes changing from one covenant to the next. Does it simply not make more sense that dress is simply not the issue it is proposed to be in the eyes of whom I call traditionalists? Aside from plain modesty, it is not an issue.

I do not think one can say that because God condoned or allowed or even beautified jewelry in the old testament, that He cannot advised against it in the New.

Advising against it is a far cry from forbidding it wholesale, too, though.

These are my thoughts only. They do not represent UPCI or any other aforementioned groups, parties, or churches.

I appreciate your civil and intelligent manner. You bring forth a much better communication than rdp has done here.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Socialite

ho-hum

Have you ever read such nonsense in your life such as what rdp wrote?

That dude takes the cake.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But would you not agree that the context is showing what people depend upon for (in Peter's case) winning lost husbands, and (in Paul's case) showing Christian character? That is a far cry from saying no jewelry at all.

If Jewelry would ever threaten the condition of another soul, I would think the conviction of the Holy Ghost would always lead to abstinence from it. In Paul's case, I do not think the Spirit would every lead us contrary to showing Christian character. Maybe this is really what its about anyway, the character of Christ. We read into the law of no jewelry at all when its really how we can better show the character of Christ. Can we see the positive, versus the negative, in this scripture?

Originally Posted by mfblume

Murder is not the same as what occurred in the Old Testament. Even Jesus said nothing about the Centurion's lifestyle in the military where men are killed in battle. While the Old Testament said THOU SHALT NOT KILL, God demanded war and death of enemies. It was no contradiction. Killing in war was not the point of killing in the Ten Commandments. And all of that was in the time of the one covenant. So there is no difference in the New Covenant with warfare, etc.., but it's only that warfare is not carried on by the church. Furthermore, there would not be a picture of God killing someone to show His love in the sense that He gives jewelery to illustrate His love.

Actually what I meant by this is that Christ teaches us to turn the other cheek and to give one that sues you our coat and cloke both, rather than despising him for taking it. Thats a stark contrast wouldn't you think?

Originally Posted by mfblume

But there is nothing specifically said about covenantal attire in the sense of priestly robes changing from one covenant to the next. Does it simply not make more sense that dress is simply not the issue it is proposed to be in the eyes of whom I call traditionalists? Aside from plain modesty, it is not an issue.

Our only example is Christ for he is now our high priest. We look at what he might have worn compared to the priestly attire of the Old Covenant. There is a stark difference. Why did Christ choose this lifestyle and why does he ask us to follow him in the same mindset of modesty and simplicity?

Originally Posted by mfblume

Advising against it is a far cry from forbidding it wholesale, too, though.

I know the HG would indeed bid us to all take Paul's advice, else why would it be deemed as the Holy Writ? Now as to the penalty for not taking his advice, thats what is debatable.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I appreciate your civil and intelligent manner. You bring forth a much better communication than rdp has done here.

Thanks and though I may not use RDP methods, I agree with the end result. I just reach that agreement differently.