Basic Standards

[Truthseeker]

One issue is I see with those the don't wear jewelry siting Paul and Peter violate the same texts with adorning of apparel. Most all apostolics believe in adornment, there's only disagreement on what is viewed as adornment.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

One issue is I see with those the don't wear jewelry siting Paul and Peter violate the same texts with adorning of apparel. Most all apostolics believe in adornment, there's only disagreement on what is viewed as adornment.

Adornment and ornamental are two different things.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Adornment and ornamental are two different things.

That's one way to try to fix it I guess, but Peter mentions all of it in the same context of "whose adorning "

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

That's one way to try to fix it I guess, but Peter mentions all of it in the same context of "whose adorning "

And that seems to prove my point. Ornamental jewelry in moderation is not a transgression of the Law.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Originalist

And that seems to prove my point. Ornamental jewelry in moderation is not a transgression of the Law.

I haven't come across it yet. Actually, what I read is verses that speak of it as signs of blessing and favor. Usually the narratives about removing them was related to when they were associated with false gods or a time of morning, both doesn't prove prohibition, IMO.

[Esaias]

The NT affirms: whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law.

Whosoever: Christian, Jew, BC or AD, WHOSOEVER, anybody, everybody.

It doesn't matter who the person is or when they lived, if ANYBODY commits sin they are transgressing the law. Why? Because sin IS the transgression of the law. Sin is defined as the violation of the divine law. Sin is therefore a theological term meaning CRIME.

Paul says "I had not known sin but by the law." The law defines sin. The law identifies what is sin. A crime is identified by the law that prohibits the offending action. If there is no law that was violated, there was no crime. How could it be otherwise? How can a person be guilty of violating a non existent law?

No matter what we identify as "sin", it must be identifiable as a transgression of the law, because that is exactly how the Bible defines the term.

Regarding Jesus, the law states we are to heed the Prophet whom God raises up. Failure to hear that Prophet results in being cut off and destroyed. It is therefore SIN to refuse to heed the Prophet raised up by God.

So, did Jesus abolish the law? Did He repeal God's legislation? Did He substitute new laws that replaced previous laws ordained by God?

Matthew 5:17-19 KJV
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He forbids us to even THINK that He came to destroy the law. He affirms even the tiniest jots and tittles remain as long as heaven and earth remain, until the very END or completion of ALL THINGS. So He has not repealed or abrogated anything in the law.

People toss the word "sin" around with very little thought as to what is involved. When accusing someone of sin and threatening death in the lake of fire, one is making a capital accusation. If the accusation be false, the accuser incurs the same fate as what the accused would have faced if the accusation was true:

Deuteronomy 19:16-19 KJV
If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; [17] Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; [18] And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; [19] Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

So it would be foolish to accuse someone of sin unless you have book, chapter, and verse to back it up, AND you are willing to bet your very life on it:

Matthew 7:1-5 KJV
Judge not, that ye be not judged. [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? [4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? [5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

[Esaias]

Regarding the prohibition against jewelry.

Nowhere do either Peter or Paul identify wearing jewelry is a sin. How could they? There was no commandment in the law prohibiting jewelry in all cases whatsoever.

However, it is expressly stated by both apostles that women ought to adorn themselves with spiritual virtues and not material ornaments. Does nobody think to ask, "Upon what basis do they make this teaching?"

Isaiah 3:16-24 KJV
Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: [17] Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts. [18] In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, [19] The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, [20] The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, [21] The rings, and nose jewels, [22] The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, [23] The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. [24] And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

The prophet identifies two facts. First, the women of Israel were well-decorated with all manner of finery, wealth and prosperity being on full display. Second, the women of Israel, like society at large, were wanton and rebellious against God. So their finery had become an insult to God. In response, God promises them poverty and devastation and an end to the nice life. They will go from riches to rags as a result of divine judgment against sin.

Now consider 1st century Roman Imperial times. The same conditions prevail: all the high society and finery and wealth of man on display in all ostentation, while sin and wickedness and rebellion rule the hearts. The church, being literally a counter cultural movement against such a satanic culture, is warned not to follow the worldlings, not to be like them. Plain, simple, modest apparel is called for. Because if a sister wears a gold necklace she's going to hell? No, but rather because we are ADORNING ourselves for the world to see, and our appearance, conversation, and lifestyle should SAY something to the world.

The issue isn't about "Will someone go to hell over this or that?" The issue is "How should the church present itself to the world at large? What message are we sending?" I think it is incredibly small minded for modern Christians to only be focused on "me, myself, and I", the unholy trinitarianism of modern religion. Because the Christian life isn't all about what YOU "get to do, as you please."

Imagine a husband telling his wife "I think you shouldn't dress a certain way, it sends the wrong message, let's agree to do things another way" and she IMMEDIATELY thinks "So are you saying you will divorce me if I don't comply?" And imagine if that's ALL she can wrap her little mind around? Do you imagine that's a happy, healthy marriage? Perhaps the man will find himself regretting ever marrying such a self centered boorish woman!

Yet so many professors of religion seem to think and act the same way as that woman, when it comes to apostolic teaching. Kind of like Pharisees, who strained out gnats but swallowed camels.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Regarding the prohibition against jewelry.

Nowhere do either Peter or Paul identify wearing jewelry is a sin. How could they? There was no commandment in the law prohibiting jewelry in all cases whatsoever.

However, it is expressly stated by both apostles that women ought to adorn themselves with spiritual virtues and not material ornaments. Does nobody think to ask, "Upon what basis do they make this teaching?"

Isaiah 3:16-24 KJV
Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: [17] Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts. [18] In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, [19] The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, [20] The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, [21] The rings, and nose jewels, [22] The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, [23] The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. [24] And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

The prophet identifies two facts. First, the women of Israel were well-decorated with all manner of finery, wealth and prosperity being on full display. Second, the women of Israel, like society at large, were wanton and rebellious against God. So their finery had become an insult to God. In response, God promises them poverty and devastation and an end to the nice life. They will go from riches to rags as a result of divine judgment against sin.

Now consider 1st century Roman Imperial times. The same conditions prevail: all the high society and finery and wealth of man on display in all ostentation, while sin and wickedness and rebellion rule the hearts. The church, being literally a counter cultural movement against such a satanic culture, is warned not to follow the worldlings, not to be like them. Plain, simple, modest apparel is called for. Because if a sister wears a gold necklace she's going to hell? No, but rather because we are ADORNING ourselves for the world to see, and our appearance, conversation, and lifestyle should SAY something to the world.

The issue isn't about "Will someone go to hell over this or that?" The issue is "How should the church present itself to the world at large? What message are we sending?" I think it is incredibly small minded for modern Christians to only be focused on "me, myself, and I", the unholy trinitarianism of modern religion. Because the Christian life isn't all about what YOU "get to do, as you please."

Imagine a husband telling his wife "I think you shouldn't dress a certain way, it sends the wrong message, let's agree to do things another way" and she IMMEDIATELY thinks "So are you saying you will divorce me if I don't comply?" And imagine if that's ALL she can wrap her little mind around? Do you imagine that's a happy, healthy marriage? Perhaps the man will find himself regretting ever marrying such a self centered boorish woman!

Yet so many professors of religion seem to think and act the same way as that woman, when it comes to apostolic teaching. Kind of like Pharisees, who strained out gnats but swallowed camels.

I agree with you here in principle. However, I do not see a wedding ring or wearing great grandma's broach as necessarily being gaudy or equating to "adornment" that would be viewed in the same right as how the women of Israel were behaving.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I agree with you here in principle. However, I do not see a wedding ring or wearing great grandma's broach as necessarily being gaudy or equating to "adornment" that would be viewed in the same right as how the women of Israel were behaving.

I don't think Paul was saying the Christian women he was addressing (indirectly, that is) were doing the same as rebellious Israel, as if those Christian women were haughty and arrogant towards God. That wasn't my intention or implication, anyways.

I also don't think the church today is dealing with sisters who just want to wear MeeMaw's brooch for sentimental reasons...

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I don't think Paul was saying the Christian women he was addressing (indirectly, that is) were doing the same as rebellious Israel, as if those Christian women were haughty and arrogant towards God. That wasn't my intention or implication, anyways.

I also don't think the church today is dealing with sisters who just want to wear MeeMaw's brooch for sentimental reasons...

're