Wedding Rings

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

My position is there were things allowed in the OT that is not allowed today.

For example God made provision for the "hated wife and child" of polygamy.
He was not endorsing it but permitting it so is it with jewelry he permitted it. He commanded men to kill, told Hosea to married a harlot. He permitted those things or suffered them but NOT in the NT.
No eye for eye and tooth for tooth though it was permitted in the OT!

I understand that there were things that God allowed...but in many cases jewels, fine raiment, gold, etc., seem to be things He actually endorsed.

Also, the prodigal son...his father put a ring on his finger and fine clothing. (NT example)

I just don't see how wearing jewelry was cast in a negative light in the OT or the NT, except in reference to not being excessive, and modesty.

[Whole Hearted]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

What is your pocket watch made of? Gold? Silver? Plastic?

It is not put where anyone can see it. It is not wore for ornamentaion, it is concluded in a pocket. If you want to carry a weeding ring around in your pocket I guess that would be alright. I still have my class ring in a drawer, but not on my finger.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Whole Hearted

It is not put where anyone can see it. It is not wore for ornamentaion, it is concluded in a pocket. If you want to carry a weeding ring around in your pocket I guess that would be alright. I still have my class ring in a drawer, but not on my finger.

Oh come on...play fair...answer my question.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I understand that there were things that God allowed...but in many cases jewels, fine raiment, gold, etc., seem to be things He actually endorsed.

Also, the prodigal son...his father put a ring on his finger and fine clothing. (NT example)

I just don't see how wearing jewelry was cast in a negative light in the OT or the NT, except in reference to not being excessive, and modesty.

Well when you make a provision in the law for the "hated wife and child" that seems like an endorsement and when some of the sons of Jacob comes from the second wife and concubines that seems to be endorsing it.

But in various times of revival and dedication in Isreal's history they took of their jewelry that is there also.

But Paul says NO gold! That is applicable today and like law ir superceedes whatever was done or written before.

[Whole Hearted]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Oh come on...play fair...answer my question.

Your question was answered.

[NLYP]

Originally Posted by NLYP

How about changing the question and ask it like this....why do preachers think they have a right to allow or disallow the wearing of wedding rings and let them do what there convictions dictate.

The whole pastor "allowing" thing just makes me cringe!

Bump

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

They did NOT take on human form they were angels. And angels appear to look like men. ALL angels are spoken of as being men go on and admit it. I challenge you to find a passage where an angel appears that is NOT called a He or Him or a man.

Angels are spirits brother Epley. They appear to look like men because....they are taking on a human form. That is why they are called men. Do you ever see angels in heaven called men?

As for being called a he or a him...we aren't talking about using masculine pronouns, we are talking about being called a man...

not called a man
Gen 16:7, 9, 10,11; 21:17; 22:11; 22:15; 31:11
Ex 3:2 ;14:19; 23:20,23,34 ;33:2
Num 20:16; 22:22-35

Too many to list

And out of curiosity at Gen 18 where it says the LORD appeared...do you believe any of those men were Yahweh Himself? And if so does that mean you believe Yahweh did NOT take a human form but just always looked like that?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Whole Hearted

Why?

Because all these things are sin. There is no big sins and little sins. Just sin.

The problem: Not everyone considers it a sin, I agree that certain people can feel uncomfortable, or have a personal conviction with them. More later, gotta go.

[Whole Hearted]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

The problem: Not everyone considers it a sin, I agree that certain people can feel uncomfortable, or have a personal conviction with them. More later, gotta go.

There are certain people who don't consider pants on women, make-up, worldly entertainment, ungodly dress, worldly music, go to ballgames, being married 2 or 3 or 4 times all the while claiming to be in church, and on and on to be sin. But it is still sin and always will be.

Originally Posted by NLYP

Bump

Just curious as to why you do not think a pastor should have the authority to determine things for the congregation.