Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

RDP, God not only "permitted" or "looked the other way" on jewelry, he himself used it for his bride!

He also told "His Bride" to "put OFF (not ON) thy ornaments.....". Remember that bit about "consistency"? Regarding your pet verse, He also put nose rings, fine linen, badger's skins on them. Can we now do the same? Ughh, ya' might wanna' check out the definition of "consistency" before you talk to ME about it!

You aren't consistent. You seem to show God was cool with jewels in the OT, but in the NT, now we are bound by the law of no jewelry.

No, I never said God was "cool" w/ ornamentation in the OT. Jewels have visual pleasure/beauty, which is precisely His point in appealling to them in Ezek. 16, etc. They reflect the beauty of His Mercy, but he isn't in ANY way, shape, or form endorsing ostentatious ornamentation on His people. Fallacy of Assumption.

Ughh, have you not seen how many times I've quoted from OT passages which demonstrate His displeasure w/ it? And Paul is the one who plainly stated "NOT with gold, pearls...." Did I quote that from a pentecostal handbook, or is it in the Bible....written to the NT church??

Not only to you sound backwards, but you've come on this forum going on and on and on how Jewelry is an abomination and using OT scriptures to prove that. You fail the consistency check.

And you fail to understand God's intents in Ezek. 16, etc. Then, when I ask you if we can now be arrayed in badger's skins, fine linen, nose rings, etc.....you would reject that, yet I'M the one who's "inconsistent"?? Further more, you try to erase the words "not with gold, pearls..." from the text. Do you not fear GOD?

Mike brings up the ol' Ezek. 16 argument, then turns right around & says, 'Well it's different today regarding nose rings, badger's skins, etc.". Hint: Then drop Ezek. 16 if we cannot apply it to us today!

Sheesh, you guys just don't get it!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

RDP, I don't know why you are.

No worries, not for long since it's apparent nothing has changed on AFF. Probably why it's constantly mocked elsewhere.

It's not a conversation. We both just talk at each other. It's impossible to have a discussion with you. I give.

Yes, of course, I'm the one entirely wrong here .

You refuse to interact with evidence.

Say what??????? I've referenced & quoted enough Scripture to gag a mule. Problem is, there is no "evidence" for the NT church to be adorning the temple of God in ornaments! Good grief, textual "evidence" is why I reject jewelry! Man, you guys are a hoot!
Your response to all I submitted for consideration is "the Text still instructs 'not with gold'" You aren't realizing that that's precisely what we're discussing. We're finding context for the meaning of "not with Gold."

What was I thinking, appealling to the literal words written in biblical text !

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

So, I give biblical example after example where God PERMITTED some things that He "hated" in the OT, but now calls all men to repentance in the NT & all you can say is "You're making things up"??? Here's an idea Mike, how about interacting w/ the texts that I gave istead of just ignoring them! Next....

Here is where you reasoning is shown faulty.

God never did things He hated nor alluded to anything that He did was represented by things he hated. Anything he hated that he permitted would not be something He, Himself, said He did if it is figurative or not. SO YES you are making things up.

Peter also so NOT THE WEARING OF APPAREL. And you do not apply your reasoning to that statement. lol

How many times must I say N-O-T the wearing of apparel?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Here is where you reasoning is shown faulty.

God never did things He hated nor alluded to anything that He did was represented by things he hated. Anything he hated that he permitted would not be something He, Himself, said He did if it is figurative or not. SO YES you are making things up.

Mikw says, "God never did things He hated..."? Hmm, let's see if that's right: "I gave her a bill of divorcement....". [Jer.]. "I hate divorce..." [Mal.]. Sorry Mike, wrong again!

Peter also so NOT THE WEARING OF APPAREL. And you do not apply your reasoning to that statement. lol

Pls. tell me you're joking at this point. How many times have I demostrated that the actual Greek states "the wearing of apparel A-D-O-R-N-I-N-G." Can you not read? "LOL" indeed!

How many times must I say N-O-T the wearing of apparel?

Evidently the same amt. of times that I have to quote the Greek! Sorry Charlie, try again................

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

Evidently the same amt. of times that I have to quote the Greek! Sorry Charlie, try again................

No need -- no use -- to try when dealing with those whose traditions mean more than overall context of the bible.

How come you are not answering why God would hate jewelry and yet use it in indicating his pure and holy love? You are making things up, dude.

You are ignoring the fact that Peter and Paul are not saying do not use jewelry, but rather do not make it YOUR ADORNMENT -- WORLD - KOSMOS. Did you read that in Greek?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by rdp

What was I thinking, appealling to the literal words written in biblical text !

Remminds me of a story my pastor growing up used to tell. There was a preacher that has a sister in his church that always wore her hair in a tight knot on the top of her head. One Sunday the preacher took two passages of scripture. One said something about a top knot, the other had come down in the verse. The preacher took the two phrases "top knot, come down" and preached against hair in a tight bun on top of the head.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Remminds me of a story my pastor growing up used to tell. There was a preacher that has a sister in his church that always wore her hair in a tight knot on the top of her head. One Sunday the preacher took two passages of scripture. One said something about a top knot, the other had come down in the verse. The preacher took the two phrases "top knot, come down" and preached against hair in a tight bun on top of the head.

Difference is that I have them all in the same verse & context! "Not with gold, pearls, or costly array." Couldn't be plainer!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Difference is that I have them all in the same verse & context! "Not with gold, pearls, or costly array." Couldn't be plainer!

Please don't ever claim to have taken a hermeneutic class ever again. Thank you.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Remminds me of a story my pastor growing up used to tell. There was a preacher that has a sister in his church that always wore her hair in a tight knot on the top of her head. One Sunday the preacher took two passages of scripture. One said something about a top knot, the other had come down in the verse. The preacher took the two phrases "top knot, come down" and preached against hair in a tight bun on top of the head.

Matthew 24:17, and these verses are words of Jesus and are in red in some Bibles which gives them more value than the black print:

"Let him which is on the houseTOP NOT COME DOWN to take any thing out of his house"

As someone has said, a text taken from its context can be just a pretext.

[Truthseeker]

The Jewelry subject is like the por-tithe subject, alot of scriptures ignored or dismissed.