Isaiah 3 and jewelry... - Page 132

mfblume · #**1311** 11-23-2010, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

I'm not trying to hold any tradition. You said Clarke agrees it was expensive and I said he stated probably was expensive. How does this apply to Paul and Peter's argument about women?

Paul referred to costly array. Yet Jesus wore it. So Paul did not mean do not wear expensive clothes. Again, the context says we are not to think that shows how Christian we are.

onefaith2 · #**1312** 11-23-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Paul referred to costly array. Yet Jesus wore it. So Paul did not mean do not wear expensive clothes. Again, the context says we are not to think that shows how Christian we are.

It would appear the text actually would suggest women not to wear costly apparel, if we take what he says literally.

Again go back to the text in almost any translation. It says what it says and there is no explanation attached to it.

Paul doesn't say anything about Jesus wearing expensive clothing.

Although its odd that you mention that when Jesus commanded his disciples to not take any thing but one garment, no money, etc and preach the gospel.

It would seem you have Jesus in the Armani dictating that his followers have to wear wrangler...

mfblume · #**1313** 11-23-2010, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

It would appear the text actually would suggest women not to wear costly apparel, if we take what he says literally.

Again go back to the text in almost any translation. It says what it says and there is no explanation attached to it.

Paul doesn't say anything about Jesus wearing expensive clothing.

Although its odd that you mention that when Jesus commanded his disciples to not take any thing but one garment, no money, etc and preach the gospel.

It would seem you have Jesus in the Armani dictating that his followers have to wear wrangler...

Actually it is your doctrine that proposes Jesus wore Armani and told his disciples to dress in potato sacks, for I do not agree Paul meant to never wear costly apparel, by the same token of what I've said all along: Paul would not say wear no gold if the bible is replete with wearing gold in a favourable light.

We need to determine what the text says by the overall bible. Like I said before, rdp lifted a phrase out of the context and pointed at it when we are supposed to look at the overall context of the entire passage. You made the same error.

Socialite · #**1314** 11-23-2010, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Actually it is your doctrine that proposes Jesus wore Armani and told his disciples o dress in potato sacks, for I do not agree Paul meant to never wear costly apparel, by the same token of what I've said all along: Paul would not say wear no gold if the bible is replete with wearing gold in a favourable light.

We need to determine what the text says by the overall bible. Like I said before, rdp lifted a phrase out of the context and pointed at it when we are supposed to look at the overall context of the entire passage. You made the same error.

Godsdrummer · #**1315** 11-23-2010, 09:13 PM

[QUOTE=mfblume;992303][indent]In fact he wore a seamless robe, not a sackcloth with a rope tied around His waist. The seamless robe was a very expensive garment of the day. In fact, it was so valuable that even the Roman soldiers were wagering for it at the foot of the Cross. Whether the robe was a gift or He bought it doesn't matter. The robe was His, He owned it.

Mike
are you having fun yet? Some things have to be shown by God, My son inlaw and I used to go round and round about this same subject for two years. I finaly listened to my wife and quite. I sent up one prayer to God, I said "if what you have shown me is truth show my son inlaw. Two years later the brought the subject up, this time they were open hearted and received the word in understanding.

Today they have a true Christian character, and have grown in leaps and bounds in spiritual things far beyond anything they obtained in the years they were stuck in their traditions.

Truthseeker · #**1316** 11-23-2010, 10:11 PM

Anyone have input on the thoughts that churches that drop "standards" lose the power or miracles???

mfblume · #**1317** 11-24-2010, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Anyone have input on the thoughts that churches that drop "standards" lose the power or miracles???

I've seen MORE miracles. Whether it was due to losing standards or not, is not sure. But I have seen more.

mfblume · #**1318** 11-24-2010, 07:34 AM

[QUOTE=Godsdrummer;992659]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

[indent]In fact he wore a seamless robe, not a sackcloth with a rope tied around His waist. The seamless robe was a very expensive garment of the day. In fact, it was so valuable that even the Roman soldiers were wagering for it at the foot of the Cross. Whether the robe was a gift or He bought it doesn't matter. The robe was His, He owned it.

Mike
are you having fun yet? Some things have to be shown by God, My son inlaw and I used to go round and round about this same subject for two years. I finaly listened to my wife and quite. I sent up one prayer to God, I said "if what you have shown me is truth show my son inlaw. Two years later the brought the subject up, this time they were open hearted and received the word in understanding.

Today they have a true Christian character, and have grown in leaps and bounds in spiritual things far beyond anything they obtained in the years they were stuck in their traditions.

Amen. With forums, the other readers get more out of it more often than the ones to whom we are responding.

onefaith2 · #**1319** 11-24-2010, 08:35 AM

[QUOTE=Godsdrummer;992659]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

[indent]In fact he wore a seamless robe, not a sackcloth with a rope tied around His waist. The seamless robe was a very expensive garment of the day. In fact, it was so valuable that even the Roman soldiers were wagering for it at the foot of the Cross. Whether the robe was a gift or He bought it doesn't matter. The robe was His, He owned it.

Mike
are you having fun yet? Some things have to be shown by God, My son inlaw and I used to go round and round about this same subject for two years. I finaly listened to my wife and quite. I sent up one prayer to God, I said "if what you have shown me is truth show my son inlaw. Two years later the brought the subject up, this time they were open hearted and received the word in understanding.

Today they have a true Christian character, and have grown in leaps and bounds in spiritual things far beyond anything they obtained in the years they were stuck in their traditions.

You have a paradox here. I am a person whom God shown to interpret as it is stated, not the other way around. True christian character is one that allows the liberty to wear jewelry and interpret Paul and Peter in favor of inward instead of outward adornment and HG conviction to be brainwashing?

onefaith2 · #**1320** 11-24-2010, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Actually it is your doctrine that proposes Jesus wore Armani and told his disciples to dress in potato sacks, for I do not agree Paul meant to never wear costly apparel, by the same token of what I've said all along: Paul would not say wear no gold if the bible is replete with wearing gold in a favourable light.

We need to determine what the text says by the overall bible. Like I said before, rdp lifted a phrase out of the context and pointed at it when we are supposed to look at the overall context of the entire passage. You made the same error.

I just listed the text in several translations. How was it in error. We can compare the overall Bible. We don't see much stress on christians wearing jewelry in the NT. We see lots of Jewish believers wearing it in the Old Testament. I don't see an error here and neither should you.