Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

And, yes, I'm aware that you backslid away from the truth into worldliness. "....if any man LOVE the WORLD, the love of the Father is NOT in him." "Whosoever, therefore, will be a friend of the WORLD, is the ENEMY of God." Honestly & sincerely, it's very sad.

Your calling Mike an enemy of God? Are you serious?????

Maybe your phylacteries are being worn a little too tight.

[jfrog]

rdp, 1 Peter 3:3 says its just as okay to wear gold as it is to put on apparel.

If 1 Timothy 2:9 is saying it is not okay to wear gold at all, then it is definetly saying that its not as okay to wear gold as it is to put on apparel.

There are only 2 ways out of this contradiction.

1. We can believe that 1 Peter 3:3 is meaning costly apparel instead of any apparel.
2. We can believe that 1 Timothy 2:9 means that broided hair, gold, pearls, costly array are all only as prohibited as putting on any apparel.

These are the only two options. Which one is the better option? I believe that since the whole new testament doesn't focus on the outward person and since jewelry wasn't prohibited in the old testament that option 2 is better and more true to the spirit of Christianity.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Oh, you've announced yourself as such many times We can hear you loud and clear.

Your point about "figurative verses can cut either way" does nothing more but prove the point many of us are trying to make. They do "cut both ways," if that's the way you like to put it. I have no issues with that either! Our goal is to hear the message and apply the message. You are zooming in on a piece of the story that you are reading without any consideration of the "figurative" or the context. Your treatment of these OT texts is either woefully dishonest or ignorant. But there's really not another option. Can you find an exegesis of those texts from a worthy scholar that supports your position? I would love to read it.

Your bologna about the OT being physical and NT being spiritual really doesn't help your NT proof-texts much. I'd just avoid going down that road if I were you. The OT is part of the same story, just as literal at times, figurative at others, along with it's highly spiritual moments.

If you read back a few threads, I responded to your 1 Tim 2:9 argument. You decided to ignore that. Remember when I talked about the word "not" as something pointing to a "this, not that" context?

If you read this from v8, he appeals to men at their pride issue, and specifically fighting and arguing. To women, he includes them in this humility charge, tells them their beauty doesn't come from primping in the mirror, chasing the latest fads but from doing something beautiful for God and becoming beautiful doing it. Don't miss the forest for the trees, RDP. The "not" is an indicator that the apostle is making a comparison, a contrast, he's setting up a "for example." To take from that a strict prohibitionist's view does a great disservice to his message.

Expensive clothes, fancy hairdos and overdone jewled up clothing is all mentioned here. This takes us back even to Corinth where the rich Christians would go to the assembly parading their social status (very common for the time) -- it is perhaps acknowledged that Paul may have been dealing with that. Not creating a list of rules of prohibitions, but pointing to "true beauty" and "true humility." That's the Gospel way after all.

Get out of your "explain away" mode Jeffrey & just take the Word as it is stated. "....N-O-T with gold...." will still be there when you're finished w/ your eraser!

You often show your ignorance when you deride angles that I bring into the discussion that you've never considered. "Speaking evil of the things which they know not of," sound familiar? For ex., you mock the concept that the OT was physical in nature [perhaps you should reread II Cor. 2-3], but the NT is spiritual in nature [see same chp.'s], which honestly reveals your lack of study.

What in the world does Corinth have to do w/ I Tim. 2? Timothy was in Ephesus, not Corinth!

Oh yea', the "scholars" that you look for regarding both the OT & NT texts abound. Do your own homework...I'm immersed in studying something else right now [the pre-existence issue]. But, I will point you to early writers such as Clement, Tertullian, or even Calvin. David Bernard's "Practical Holiness/In Search of Holiness," Nate Wilson's, "In bonds of love," etc. lists numerous quotations regarding the jewelry issue. The list would be too voluminous to cite here, & I do not have my library w/ me! In sum, do your own homework [hint, ya' might wanna' see how the Orthodox Jews viewed (& still do as I understand it) jewelry, since every NT writer had a Jewish paradigm].

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

We've interacted plenty with your proof-texts, buddy.

If you don't like the word "phony" then quit trying to break down someone's argument with "official fallacies." The fact is, you are pulling these out of you know what... hoping they stick. So receive that not as a "personal attack" but as a direct attack on your argumentation.

Only someone like you would keep repeating a "phrase" in the middle of a verse without putting it in its context. I mean, I could do that all night with scripture and if that's the argumentation you buy, I could have you all mixed up!

Well, you're doing it again. Mocking formal logical fallacies which you've apparently never took the time to study for yourself. Makes no difference to me...ya' just need to do a little more homework before you "speak evil" of the things that you're apparently ignorant of!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I'll just play your game back and say "braided hair" over and over and over and over again, and leave thinking I'm smart.

What part of "braided hair" don't you understand? I don't want your explanations! It's scripture! It's Bible!

Yes, which is precisely the reason that we don't do it [see the Amlified Bible on this verse, for ex., remember that the brackets were supplied by the translators, not the original text!]. Now we're getting somewhere!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Get out of your "explain away" mode Jeffrey & just take the Word as it is stated. "....N-O-T with gold...." will still be there when you're finished w/ your eraser!

You often show your ignorance when you deride angles that I bring into the discussion that you've never considered. "Speaking evil of the things which they know not of," sound familiar? For ex., you mock the concept that the OT was physical in nature [perhaps you should reread II Cor. 2-3], but the NT is spiritual in nature [see same chp.'s], which honestly reveals your lack of study.

What in the world does Corinth have to do w/ I Tim. 2? Timothy was in Ephesus, not Corinth!

Oh yea', the "scholars" that you look for regarding both the OT & NT texts abound. Do your own homework...I'm immersed in studying something else right now [the pre-existence issue]. But, I will point you to early writers such as Clement, Tertullian, or even Calvin. David Bernard's "Practical Holiness/In Search of Holiness," Nate Wilson's, "In bonds of love," etc. lists numerous quotations regarding the jewelry issue. The list would be too voluminous to cite here, & I do not have my library w/ me! In sum, do your own homework [hint, ya' might wanna' see how the Orthodox Jews viewed (& still do as I understand it) jewelry, since every NT writer had a Jewish paradigm].

Where's that head-slapping emoticon? Ah.. nevermind.

As far as every response from you being "NOT with gold" you're like talking to a brick wall. "Explain away?" Is that what you call exegesis? Here we go 'round the same pony over and over and over and over. Like I said, I'll just keep repeating "Not with braids" and smugly feel like I'm so witty.

What's your point with 2 Corinthians 2-3? Chapter 3 points fully to Christ. But other than that, I can't wait to see what a trainwreck you did to poor Paul in that letter too.

As far as me mentioning Corinth... are you that dense to not following the context of my remarks? I never ONCE claimed that Timothy was in Corinth. At least your ignorance is consistent. Go back and read what I was saying there and maybe you can actually give me a legit response.

I ask for NT/OT scholars and you give me Bernard and Nate Wilson?

Hint: Have you been with Hassidic jews lately? THEY WEAR JEWELRY!!!! I mean, if we believe they represent where we should be and what we should look like.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Right, j. That makes the issue sensible in light of the FACT that the bible shows GOD CONDONING jewelry in Ezek 16. USES of something in a negative way stand alongside OTHER uses of the same thing in a positive way. We have to blind ourselves to not see that.

Ezek 16 is the absolute bane of the standard that demands no jewelry. Slam-dunk!

Then you will have no problem w/ my nose-rings Sun. morn...right Mike??

O' consistency thou art a jewel [not to be worn, of course!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Well, you're doing it again. Mocking formal logical fallacies which you've apparently never took the time to study for yourself. Makes no difference to me...ya' just need to do a little more homework before you "speak evil" of the things that you're apparently ignorant of!

Oh, I've been through the argument and debate classes. Get over yourself. You just sound like a little boy carrying his daddy's tools when you throw words around.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Yes, which is precisely the reason that we don't do it [see the Amlified Bible on this verse, for ex., remember that the brackets were supplied by the translators, not the original text!]. Now we're getting somewhere!

No braids?? Well, at least your consistent.

And what is "expensive clothing?" Do you wear a suit to church?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Your calling Mike an enemy of God? Are you serious?????

Maybe your phylacteries are being worn a little too tight.

I see, I reference God-breathed Scripture....& now I'm wearing "phylacteries"???

Man, you guys are a trip!