Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

"neither male or female in christ" is poor defense. Maybe we shouldn't teach skirts for women since there is no females in Christ??

The text does NOT say "there is no females in Christ," which would be silly, but the emphasis is on the fact that when it comes to SALVATION [see immediate antecedent] the same goes for everyone, whether you be "jew or gentile, male or female."

O' & by the way, Deut. 7:25 certainly inludes men in the promised land. Moreover, Paul begins vs. 9 w/ "LIKEWISE" for the women in connection to the men clearly indicating that he was connecting the women's outward holiness to the men in the preceding verse. In sum...what's good for the goose is........rdp

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That may be so. I agree men can lift up hands anywhere. It's just that I think it is mentioning that anywhere where there is church... And one translation you quoted did agree with me.



Places of worship are churches.


But that is not my main argument, anyway.

It still stands that God would not contradict Himself to forbid all wearing of jewelry and then use it in other instances to indicate blessing and condoning of it.

Paul exhorted woman not to wear it. Again the motive is what is being taught, not the gold itself. Again things in the OT were forbidden such as certain meats but were made clean in the NT. Why can you not believe opposite can occur?

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Paul exhorted woman not to wear it. Again the motive is what is being taught, not the gold itself. Again things in the OT were forbidden such as certain meats but were made clean in the NT. Why can you not believe opposite can occur?

Not sure comparing eating meat to jewelry is a good ideal. Accepting of eating meat signified Gods grace from my understanding.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Paul exhorted woman not to wear it. Again the motive is what is being taught, not the gold itself. Again things in the OT were forbidden such as certain meats but were made clean in the NT. Why can you not believe opposite can occur?

Opposites cannot occur in the Word as you claim the issue of jewelry involves opposites. The eating of certain meats involves reasons far different than anything to do with jewelry. The eating of meats regarded foreshadowing and symbolic elements as well as health issues. Nothing ever forbidden in one covenant is allowed for and used as illustrations of holy things and acts in another covenant. Face it, it is wrong to think jewelry is forbidden in the bible. You are missing the context of references in the New Testament. We cannot grasp for straws to hold onto a tradition that is simply mistaken.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Opposites cannot occur in the Word as you claim the issue of jewelry involves opposites. The eating of certain meats involves reasons far different than anything to do with jewelry. The eating of meats regarded foreshadowing and symbolic elements as well as health issues. Nothing ever forbidden in one covenant is allowed for and used as illustrations of holy things and acts in another covenant. Face it, it is wrong to think jewelry is forbidden in the bible. You are missing the context of references in the New Testament. We cannot grasp for straws to hold onto a tradition that is simply mistaken.

I have showed differences. Meat eating was a violation of the law in the old when it was unclean meat. Today all is blessed by prayer.

Jewelry wearing was pictured as a priviledge of wealth and authority in the Old, Our new high priest wore none of it as he humbled himself completely.

That is the message of the Bible. Do we take it or explain it away by saying it doesn't strictly forbid an action?

Principles are used in the NT. Its the spirit of the law, not the letter for us today. Thou shalts no longer cut it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

I have showed differences. Meat eating was a violation of the law in the old when it was unclean meat. Today all is blessed by prayer.

Meats were violation of law due to foreshadowing and symbolic purposes of those meats and mostly for health reasons. God allowed Noah to eat any meat, so long as the blood was removed. That was before law. We are back to what Noah was able to do, now. Law made more particular detailed forbiddances, but not for the sake of the eating of the meat being sin in and of itself. It was for health reasons.

Jewelry wearing was pictured as a priviledge of wealth and authority in the Old, Our new high priest wore none of it as he humbled himself completely.

Nothing teaches us that jewelry was distinctly abrogated by Jesus because it was prideful as though lack of it meant humbling Himself. That is assumption and reading it into the text. There is no chapter and verse that says Jesus was humble since He had no jewelry. He humbled Himself by being in the form of God and then fashioned as a man and died. (Phil 2). Not because he lacked jewelry. lol

Jewelry was not just wealth and authority. It was for beauty and God's Word said Rebekah was beautiful, while Ezek 16 has God saying Jerusalem was exceeding beautiful with the jewelry He metaphorically gave.

A person has to make things up and add to the Word in order to forbid jewelry since the bible does not make these claims at all.

That is the message of the Bible. Do we take it or explain it away by saying it doesn't strictly forbid an action?

That is not the message of the bible. It is what you made up.

Principles are used in the NT. Its the spirit of the law, not the letter for us today. Thou shalts no longer cut it.

That is apples and oranges. It is stretching things, to say the least, in order to uphold a tradition not taught by the Word.

[onefaith2]

Sorry you do not agree but must go on what the Holy Ghost has shown me. I would not expect one who disagrees with Paul or Peter advising against jewelry to agree anyway. However to say I am making up a doctrine or reading into the text is wrong. Jewelry is not God's beauty today. The fruit of the spirit is the beauty today, not in gold or silver or costly array.

I didn't say Jesus humbled himself because he had no jewelry. Jesus humbled himself in his appearance, his words, and his choice of where he lodged and how he spent time with. Its much more than just jewelry.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Sorry you do not agree but must go on what the Holy Ghost has shown me. I would not expect one who disagrees with Paul or Peter advising against jewelry to agree anyway. However to say I am making up a doctrine or reading into the text is wrong. Jewelry is not God's beauty today. The fruit of the spirit is the beauty today, not in gold or silver or costly array.

I didn't say Jesus humbled himself because he had no jewelry. Jesus humbled himself in his appearance, his words, and his choice of where he lodged and how he spent time with. Its much more than just jewelry.

Sorry, but I still maintain you are adding to the Word. We just have to disagree about this. The bible does not say anything about his appearance, words, choice of where he lived was being humble. It says His humanity was what humbled Him. I have chapter and verse that says that.

And for you to say I disagree with Paul's or Peter's words, is to claim your interpretation is correct and no one else's is. It is not a matter of disagreeing with Peter or Paul, but disagreeing with your interpretation. I already stated that Peter was solely speaking about how women would appeal to their lost husbands for salvation, and Paul was speaking about appealing to the outward to show our character.

Just because fruit of the Spirit is TRUE and greater beauty, does not mean mankind must not beautify themselves in any manner outwardly. It's a matter of knowing what is greater or not. Otherwise, we should look like swine and leave our appearance unkempt.

To say jewelry is forbidden in the NT, when it is not, is to say God conflicted with Himself and nonsensically used an unholy picture to illustrate the a holy thing.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[mfblume]

Nobody responded, but I already stated Jesus had a seamless robe with was COSTLY ARRAY in that day.

Clarke said:

"the high priest had a long robe of a blue color, which hung down to the feet, and was put over all the rest." It is likely that this was the same with that upper garment which the soldiers divided among them, it being probably of a costly stuff. I may just add here, that I knew a woman who knit all kinds of clothes, even to the sleeves and button holes, without a seam; and have seen some of the garments which she made; that the thing is possible I have the fullest proof.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sorry, but I still maintain you are adding to the Word. We just have to disagree about this. The bible does not say anything about his appearance, words, choice of where he lived was being humble. It says His humanity was what humbled Him. I have chapter and verse that says that.

And for you to say I disagree with Paul's or Peter's words, is to claim your interpretation is correct and no one else's is. It is not a matter of disagreeing with Peter or Paul, but disagreeing with your interpretation. I already stated that Peter was solely speaking about how women would appeal to their lost husbands for salvation, and Paul was speaking about appealing to the outward to show our character.

Just because fruit of the Spirit is TRUE and greater beauty, does not mean mankind must not beautify themselves in any manner outwardly. It's a matter of knowing what is greater or not. Otherwise, we should look like swine and leave our appearance unkempt.To say jewelry is forbidden in the NT, when it is not, is to say God conflicted with Himself and nonsensically used an unholy picture to illustrate the a holy thing.

Thanks for your thoughts!

My post meant that you disagree they were advising against it. I am not saying you disagree with Peter and Paul (although if what I am led and convicted to believe is true, you are)

Are you insensuating you are unkept unless you deck yourself with jewelry and costly apparel? That opinion definitely goes against what Paul or Peter is advising. Of course you may not mean that at all. Its hard to tell anyone's tone on a forum I've learned.

Again I never said Jewelry was an unholy thing, our hearts are the unholy thing and it is what our hearts do wtih jewelry that makes it hard to maintain the attitude that Peter and Paul are stressing.