Wading through the wedding rings

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

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

Well, I see where rings are given in offerings, where rings are threatened to be confiscated, along with practically everything else, for not toeing the line, and the other mentions are fairly matter-of-fact, but the ring owners in question are kings, rulers, or otherwise wealthy.

And we all know that it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Based on all that, it looks to me like you are saying that rings are shown to be a burden and are associated with the self-righteous wealthy and the church in her seasons of hedonism.

Did I get that right?

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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

I fully understand the context. I agree that Paul is admonishing women in regards to godliness. However, what you seem to so easily ignore is that there is an historical context to all of man's teaching on godliness issues.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

This is a very basic principle of godliness that I certainly embrace.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

[B][I][SIZE="3"]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.

I certainly don't embrace the views of Carlton Pearson. However, to suggest that we have an obligation to simply embrace every personal view Paul or Peter held in regard to non salvation issues is far-fetched and I know of no one who does.

[RandyWayne]

I know... those evil rich! Oh, the horror of showing any sign of wealth (except for the pastor of your typical Southern mid-sized or larger churches).
And your sarcasm is plainly dripping through the screen.....

How about THESE taken from the Songs? Chapter 1 versus 10 and 11. (KJV)
"Thy cheeks are comely with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold.
We will make thee borders of gold with studs of silver."

Pretty presumptuous to compare a woman to jewelry huh? Especially since said jewelry is considered so God-awful bad. Why not just compare her to pond scum and maggots and be done with it?

"Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph's finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck."

Do you think Joseph wore these with pride? Or hated every minute these abominations were on his finger and across his back? Especially considering where he came from..... Not just his family back home but the prisoners he used to share cells with.

Yes, rings were nearly always used in the context of leadership, ownership, high office, and symbolic for having favor. Too bad we had to denigrate them to such a simple thing as dedication to ones spouse....

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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".

First of all, I am not presenting any "ringless unwed doctrine". What I am saying as simply as I know how is that throughout the Bible, where there are covenants made, it was common for there to be a token or symbol of that covenant. We all know that Scripture doesn't teach that we must wear a wedding ring to indicate we are married. On the other hand there is no Scripture forbidding the wearing of a ring to indicate we have entered into a marriage covenant. God seems to place great emphasis upon covenants and the providing of tokens of those covenants. If as you have admitted in another post, Paul is addressing "adornments" when making reference to wearing of gold, then I don't see what your problem is with a wedding ring, which isn't being worn as an adornment, but for a purpose, in the same way one wears a watch.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Here's the million dollar word.

I wrote, "To me..." You highlighted the "me" and thus your quote. Yet, you choose to ignore the fact that Paul repeatedly throughout his epistles to the churches expressed "To Me" type of viewpoints. Let's examine 1Timothy 2 for example;

Verse1 "I urge......"

Verse 8 "I want...."

Verse 9 "I also want...."

Verse 12 "I do not permit...."

Paul is being a spiritual father and mentor and sharing his heart with Timothy on a number of issues. He is not saying God commands this or that.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

I am simply saying that the teaching concerning propriety in worship in 1Cor.11 was offfered up in the context of historical and traditional/cultural norms. I believe wedding rings fall into the same context. In 2007, it is the traditional/cultural reality that wedding rings are a recognized token of the marriage covenant, so why wouldn't we as Christians want to support something that has such deep meaning for married Christian couples?

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

Having lived in other religious cultures and seen firsthand how Roman Catholicism has incorporated paganistic practices and traditions from other religions into their faith, I fully understand what you are saying here and concur with it. However, you have chosen to interpret Paul's statement expressing his desire that Christian women not wear gold to be a command from God against wearing a wedding ring. I don't share your interpretation.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

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.

I'm not implying that Scriptures change, but I am saying that Paul expressed his views in an historical/cultural context that is different from the historical/cultural context of 21st Century North America.

I doubt very much that you fully embrace and practice all that Paul taught in the epistles. Like the rest of us I imagine you have chosen what you want to practice and for the rest you probably have a good discourse on why that wouldn't be relevent to you today.

[SDG]

Is this the same Paul that suggested celibacy is the best case scenario? Or was it a command?

[Truly Blessed]

I realize that some of you have a different understanding than I do of salvation and holiness issues, and for this reason you approach some issues from a different perspective. I can respect that, I just don't share your view.

For example, 1Cor.1:26-31 says, "Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him[God] that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

It is my position that I am in Christ because of the grace of God. I have nothing to boast in. I am who I am because of what I have received as a free gift from God. My understanding is that my salvation does not depend on anything in me, but on my acceptance of Jesus Christ as my salvation, righteousness, and holiness.

When I see so much emphasis given to a legalistic pursuit of things like rings and uncut hair, and pants vs. dresses, etc., it makes me wonder if those doing so believe these verses I have just quoted. What have we received if Christ hasn't become our righteousness and holiness, and most of all, our salvation?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

This is good discussion. Now how do you temper this with the NT?

What do you mean? You want me to make the same arguments and refutations I just made about a month ago on this forum in another thread?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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

In Jesus Name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

I have yet to see anyone declare that wearing a wedding ring is a biblical requirement. In other words it's not doctrine. I don't see anyone claiming it is a doctrine. What we see are people claiming it's a doctrine to NOT wear any ornament of any kind

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

You give love a bad name!

Love stinks
Love stinks...yeah yeah...
Love stinks!
Love stinks! Yeah yeah...
Love Stinks
Love stinks! Yeah yeah...

[Rico]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Rico,

Thank you for stating your position.

Are you willing to elaborate on the bible you use to get there?

I think I perceive some depth, awareness, and sensibility bubbling up through the anti-ultracon reactionary in you.

Who says these forums can't be helpful?

For me, I quit wearing jewelry before I heard any teaching on the practice. I was in church one service and had my hands raised to God in worship. At the time I wore a wedding band. I became of aware of the fact that I could feel the Holy Ghost everywhere in my body but the hand I had the wedding ring on. I took the wedding ring off and could feel God in that hand again. I tried it a few times to be sure I wasn't imagining what was happening. I haven't worn jewelry since.

As far as studying goes, it has been a long time since I studied it out. I believe the NT scriptures that talk about not adorning with gold and pearls apply, and I believe the example Bro Epley gave about the Israelites taking off their jewelry supports the no jewelry argument. I also remember some scriptures talking about an offering for the iniquity of the holy things in the temple as having to do with them being made of gold.