Wading through the wedding rings

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

The most important words in 1Peter 3:2 are "...let it not be that outward adorning... He is not saying that there should not be that adorning, but rather that this is not the adorning a woman should be relying on to distinguish herself.

TB, you're missing the content, Paul is focusing on costly apparel and the wearing of jewelry as alluring. If you would happen to use this in the context of the New Testament Paul also admonishes women to win their husbands by chaste behavior, this runs harmoniously with what the Apostle Peter is saying.

So, Paul and Peter are both speaking of the inward enhancing the outward.

Hence Jesus' words in Matthew 23:25-26

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse FIRST that which is within the cup and platter, that the OUTSIDE OF THEM MAY BE CLEAN ALSO.

The inward will always enhance the outward.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

In 1Timothy 2:8-15 the most important words to note are in verse 8 where Paul begins with "I will therefore ...." Paul had his own views and expressed those personal views as "I will", not God commands or requires. How many pastors share his views on women? His views were shaped by his culture as our's are by our culture.

TB, please understand I'm not attacking you personally, I am just trying to present what I'm seeing in your statements. First, what you're saying is that the scripture is ever evolving with our society and cultures, and the Bible is not to have us conform to it, but that it should conform to us? Please explain your thoughts more clearly for me.

I was recently studying a book "The Gospel of Inclusion" by the agnostic Carlton Pearson, and find that he views the Bible through the lens of it being written to an ancient people and that the Bible can only be used for moral issues just as any other religious book or mythology. The agnostic Pearson also makes statements concerning teachings of Paul that must be kept in context of Paul's era and culture.

The Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches prove their arguments with the same kind of ideology. What I'm saying is that kind of approach can cause you problems that in the long run will hurt you.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

Are you who are relying on Paul's words here to support your position for not wearing rings, able to say that you agree with all of Paul's teaching throughout his NT writings?

When I read this for the first time I was going to give you a quick answer, but I will ask you to please explain further the above.

In Jesus Name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

You give love a bad name!

A song by Tina Turner?

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

A song by Tina Turner?

A song by the gospel quartet Bon Jovi.

Have you ever toured with them?

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

My question has always been how can folks miss the fact that Paul and Peter both were adressing adorning the hidden man of the heart.

The 400 year old language of the KJV probably trips some up. people who do not take into account the idoms of the KJV laguage misss the fact that both passages were had the emphasis on the adorning with the love of God. To let Christ in you be what is shining in your lives, not your ornamanets/clothing and fancy hair doos.

This was also addressed because of people of so many economic levels.
Peter and Paul both desired that the poor could worship together with people of great wealth and not feel like they "went to the prom wothout a tux or a formal"

The wealthy could hire hairdressers to fix their hair elaboratly and don lavish costly clothing and addorn themselves with the jewelry that the hebrews were accustommed to wearing in that day.

The scriptural admonition was to admonish the rich that is was Christ, the hidden man of the heart, that counted in their lives, NOT how fancy they got dolled up for church.

This a lesson we can all apply in our lives today.

It was NEVER about the simple adornment of the jewelry they all wore.
It was NEVER about being able to dress nice
It was NEVER about if you wore your hair up or down ladies.

It was abouting adorning with Christ.

If you don't believe it that way. Well, I pray for you...cause you ar ejust plain wrong !

Freeatlast,

I find your position very interesting. You make a lot of assertions, but you haven't provided much basis or support for it.

May I please ask how do you know:

1) It was NEVER about the simple adornment of the jewelry they all wore?
2) It was NEVER about being able to dress nice?
3) It was NEVER about if you wore your hair up or down ladies.?

What bible or biblical principles have you used as a basis to reach your position?

Thanks a heap-o'-tater salad.

Carl

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Wow, I think I really love this person!

Anyone care to produce the TEACHING that says a woman must wear a wedding ring to show she is married.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

It must be in the same chapter with a person must wear long sleeves. To me, wearing a wedding ring falls in the same category as the example in Scripture of a woman having to cover her head when praying. There are cultural traditions that if not adhered to send a wrong message to the public looking on. A man and a woman checking into a hotel without wedding rings on sends a wrong message in my opinion, because the rings are a traditional way of identifying married persons in our culture.

The Bible teaches us to avoid the very appearance of evil!

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

It must be in the same chapter with a person must wear long sleeves.

Although connecting long sleeves to salvation is improper, the logic used to arrive at teaching long sleeves from biblical principles is valid.

To me, wearing a wedding ring falls in the same category as the example in Scripture of a woman having to cover her head when praying. There are cultural traditions that if not adhered to send a wrong message to the public looking on. A man and a woman checking into a hotel without wedding rings on sends a wrong message in my opinion, because the rings are a traditional way of identifying married persons in our culture.

So are you saying that both head covering and abstaining from gold are/were cultural traditions that have no bearing on modern Christian life?

The Bible teaches us to avoid the very appearance of evil!

Now this is where I can jump back on board with you, because I see this as biblical principle in favor of wedding rings. Simple, functional wedding rings are what I speak of. Not extravagant, fancy, or inordinately expensive wedding rings.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

It must be in the same chapter with a person must wear long sleeves.

Really? Show me the TEACHING chapter and verse that shows if a woman or man has no strip of gold, silver, wood, around their finger they have no symbol of wedlock. If you would like to proceed to clothing we can do that but let's deal with what you had presented on the "ringless unwed doctrine".

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

To me,

Here's the million dollar word.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

wearing a wedding ring falls in the same category as the example in Scripture of a woman having to cover her head when praying.

TB, If you can find the time to produce the method on how you use the above chapter (I think you are trying to pull from 1st Corinthains 11?) to teach on wedding rings? I would appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

There are cultural traditions that if not adhered to send a wrong message to the public looking on.

TB, the Chabad Lubavitch had taken tradition which were taught to them in Eastern Europe and made what is Chassidim. They have been able to keep their culture for over 200 years within other cultures across Europe and the world. There are cultures around the world that are diametrically opposed to Christianity and therefore it would be impossible to adhere to their practice and still have a good conscience towards the Christian faith. I say that to say this, we cannot and should not adopt practices from other religions and cultures and baptize them into Christianity (as did the Roman Catholic Church) do appease those who live around us. Through education and Bible teaching can other cultures be able to leave their practices and come into Christianity. In the chapter of first letter to the Corinthians Paul teaches converted pagans issue that were part of the Jewish religious culture.

I'm still very interested to see how you apply 1st Corinthains 11 to teach people that they should wear a wedding ring.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

A man and a woman checking into a hotel without wedding rings on sends a wrong message in my opinion,

That's not my problem that is their problem. Down here in Wilton Manors Florida (mostly homosexuals) if two men are walking together or driving together they could be thought of as being homosexuals. Are they? Would that stop any two males (or two females) from walking or driving together?

Excuse me, but I think implying that the scriptures change to what is normal in modern culture flaws your argument. So hold on to your hat TB, because our culture is crawling towards the toilet and will become very obscene if revival does not take care of those who are lost.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

because the rings are a traditional way of identifying married persons in our culture.

The Bible teaches us to avoid the very appearance of evil!

There are many so called TRADITIONS that religious groups throughout the ages have had to come against in order to OBEY GOD and NOT MAN. Therefore they met staunch opposition. You have presented me nothing but situational hypothetical arguments, how about now teaching a lesson how you can present your case within scripture?

Thank you very much for your time concerning this.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[RandyWayne]

Anyone care to produce the TEACHING that says a woman must wear a wedding ring to show she is married.

I think it is right next to the verse that says that "good pentecostals drive minivans"..... But I don't see such a verse, so will not drive a minivan -ever.

The point is that the question is complete bunk. The bible does not say SHOULD put vinyl siding on homes, yet just about everyone in Wisconsin does. The bible does not say we SHOULD have a 2 1/2 bath instead of 1 or 2, but many do. Want me to list the other 17 trillion things we DO do but the bible doesn't say we should? (But doesn't forbid either.)

Look, I wear one. My wife wears one. I don't care if someone else doesn't, but boy oh boy, they sure seem to think that WE shouldn't, and THAT does bother me.

(And it is simply amazing how often rings are spoken of in non-negative or matter-of-fact ways in scripture.... mmmmmmm.)

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

(And it is simply amazing how often rings are spoken of in non-negative or matter-of-fact ways in scripture.... mmmmmmm.)

Thanks ever so much for chiming in.

By the way, did you have something specific in mind here, or will a simple search on biblegateway for 'ring' be sufficient for me to investigate your notion?

[RandyWayne]

It should be MORE then sufficient. It's not exactly hidden.