Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

Then grab your "glossary"! Yes, she was making an ad hominem. But, running out of time to explin....gotta' teach a Bible study tonight, in which I'll be demonstrating your logical fallacies to the many there.

Was not!

[MissBrattified]

rdp,

You do not want to take I Timothy 2 literally, because if you do, you will have to allow jewelry that isn't made of gold or pearls or costly metals. It mentions specifics and doesn't say that decorative pieces aren't allowed. If you use CONTEXT, however, you can support the point that overall, modesty in all things is preferred. If you take a literal approach, there are holes in your list of rules. I also hope you preach against buying expensive clothing. (To be consistent, I'm sure you do - but I would prefer a confirmation on your part.)

Additionally, there's the question of costly array; do we go by what it actually cost? Or by what it SHOULD have cost? I routinely buy clothing at a discount or on consignment that cost much more originally, but I didn't pay that price. So is it "costly" if it's high quality and has a related value? Or is it costly if I buy something I can't afford? Is it only "costly" if it's expensive, and what would you call expensive? Is it more important that my clothing LOOK cheap or actually BE cheap? Should we strive to avoid offense and make sure that whatever clothes we purchase look like they were sewn together by elves, using the cheapest, lowest quality fabric available?

P.S. I hope you preach against braided hair.

If I take the verse literally, then there is a LOT of jewelry I am free to wear.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

rdp,

You do not want to take I Timothy 2 literally, because if you do, you will have to allow jewelry that isn't made of gold or pearls or costly metals. It mentions specifics and doesn't say that decorative pieces aren't allowed. If you use CONTEXT, however, you can support the point that overall, modesty in all things is preferred. If you take a literal approach, there are holes in your list of rules. I also hope you preach against buying expensive clothing. (To be consistent, I'm sure you do - but I would prefer a confirmation on your part.)

Additionally, there's the question of costly array; do we go by what it actually cost? Or by what it SHOULD have cost? I routinely buy clothing at a discount or on consignment that cost much more originally, but I didn't pay that price. So is it "costly" if it's high quality and has a related value? Or is it costly if I buy something I can't afford? Is it only "costly" if it's expensive, and what would you call expensive? Is it more important that my clothing LOOK cheap or actually BE cheap? Should we strive to avoid offense and make sure that whatever clothes we purchase look like they were sewn together by elves, using the cheapest, lowest quality fabric available?

P.S. I hope you preach against braided hair.

If I take the verse literally, then there is a LOT of jewelry I am free to wear.

I've already responded to most of these type arguments previously in this thread. So, you'll have to go back & reread them if you want clarity. But, YES, we preach against braided hair, costly apparel, etc......Why? Because it's in God's Word! Also, you cannot offer a radical separation of the literal text & context as you suggest above. It takes the former to get to the latter!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

I've already responded to most of these type arguments previously in this thread. So, you'll have to go back & reread them if you want clarity. But, YES, we preach against braided hair, costly apparel, etc......Why? Because it's in God's Word! Also, you cannot offer a radical separation of the literal text & context as you suggest above. It takes the former to get to the latter!

I give you props for consistency then. At least there's something!

I agree with the overall concept of modesty and moderation, and "decorating" ourselves with good works rather than what we wear. I'm just not convinced that the meaning of the passage is that specifically wearing those materials or wearing a beautiful dress is sinful! It's pointing out traditionally decorative items, and saying that good works is the preferable adornment for a woman. I agree with that principle.

[Socialite]

The meaning of the word "poor [man]" from Strong's:

From πτώσσω ptōssō (to crouch; akin to G4422 and the alternate of G4098); a beggar (as cringing), that is, pauper (strictly denoting absolute or public mendicancy, although also used in a qualified or relative sense; whereas G3993 properly means only straitened circumstances in private), literally (often as noun) or figuratively (distressed): - beggar (-ly), poor.

As you can see, it could literally mean a beggar (as in, someone homeless and begging for meals on the streets), or it could refer to someone who is simply poor.

Ahhh yes, the ol' Strongs that simply gives every possible meaning of the word under consideration. Ya' know, you folks are terrible wanting in the area of Koine' Greek grammar...if you even know what that is. Oh yea', I like how you prefer the alternate meaning to the "literal" definition ! Why am I not surprised?

You've done nothing to defend your position on why you think the word should be one who begs and not just one who is poor and in need. Talk about ad hominems! Look up the word "hypocrisy."

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Socialite

You've done nothing to defend your position on why you think the word should be one who begs and not just one who is poor and in need. Talk about ad hominems! Look up the word "hypocrisy."

Yea...what was I thinking referencing some of the most authoritative lexicons in existence!

[Socialite]

By the way, since "public mendicancy" means "dependent on alms for sustenance", and we have a lot of Christians on the public dole, e.g., WELFARE, I'd say we DO have a lot of beggars in the church, at least in THAT sense of the word.

More twisting here than a Chubby Checker tribute! "Christians," should work if able [see II Thess.....but put your typical eraser down when you do]], if not able, then this would be an anomaly...which NEVER sets the precedent for the normative situations. Man...you guys are unbelievably ignorant of proper academia, which, of course, is why you believe the way you do!

Chubby Checker? Man, you are aging yourself there.
Believers world-wide that don't work are an anomaly? There you again speaking with an ethnocentrist viewpoint. Even Christians working for $2.50/hour would need assistance. Even welfare recipients work to supplement income to be able to live. So what on earth are you talking about? Someone call Jeffrey back!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Chubby Checker? Man, you are aging yourself there.
Believers world-wide that don't work are an anomaly? There you again speaking with an ethnocentrist viewpoint. Even Christians working for $2.50/hour would need assistance. Even welfare recipients work to supplement income to be able to live. So what on earth are you talking about? Someone call Jeffrey back!

Ahhh....then they wouldn't be classified as "beggars" would they ! Tks. for the help....yes, you need to call someone to help you out, but I've never been to impressed w/ ol' Jeffrey either [since he says it's okay for a preacher to be decked out in jewelry w/ shorts & tank top!]........tooooooooooo hilarious!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ahhh....then they wouldn't be classified as "beggars" would they ! Tks. for the help....yes, you need to call someone to help you out, but I've never been to impressed w/ ol' Jeffrey either [since he says it's okay for a preacher to be decked out in jewelry w/ shorts & tank top!]........tooooooooooo hilarious!

Follow the conversation. This is responding to MB's claim about those who receive assistance from the government or others. This is an equivalent of a beggar. Someone asking for assistance, and getting that assistance. Must they wear a robe, have sores and sit at the city gates to be qualified as a beggar?

(And the Psalm doesn't say "beggar" it says "seed begging bread." Ahem... hungry. Running the streets. Not provided for)

Yeah, that is SOOOOOOOO hilarious that a guy would think it unsinful for a preacher to have shorts on. Oh man, I'm slapping my knee over here.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Follow the conversation. This is responding to MB's claim about those who receive assistance from the government or others. This is an equivalent of a beggar. Someone asking for assistance, and getting that assistance. Must they wear a robe, have sores and sit at the city gates to be qualified as a beggar?

(And the Psalm doesn't say "beggar" it says "seed begging bread." Ahem... hungry. Running the streets. Not provided for)

Yeah, that is SOOOOOOOO hilarious that a guy would think it unsinful for a preacher to have shorts on. Oh man, I'm slapping my knee over here.

Not surprising at all !