|
Tab Menu 1
| Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun! |
 |
|
07-26-2007, 06:18 PM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,169
|
|
|
I've spent some time this afternoon reading through various commentaries and I haven't found anyone who embraces the position set forth by EB that Paul was forbidding the wearing of rings in 1Tim.2:9. What I read is consistent with my own understanding of what Paul is emphasizing, which is, what was proper for public worship for both men and women.
|
07-26-2007, 06:39 PM
|
|
Guest
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truly Blessed
I've spent some time this afternoon reading through various commentaries and I haven't found anyone who embraces the position set forth by EB that Paul was forbidding the wearing of rings in 1Tim.2:9. What I read is consistent with my own understanding of what Paul is emphasizing, which is, what was proper for public worship for both men and women.
|
This new revelation, the " dress-code holiness" movement, can be traced to recent history ... including the PAJC W&S view of the New Birth ..
|
07-26-2007, 09:51 PM
|
|
arbitrary subjective label
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fifth Brick Ranch on the left.
Posts: 1,640
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
|
Oh . . . My . . . Aching . . . . Eyeballs!
No wonder you folks have expressed such weariness with this topic! And I didn't make it all the way through yet!
I did unearth this jewel of yours. Once you guys were done with the fools business I think you very effectively reduced the argument to absurdity.
I think I may have some bible that applies more directly to the principle of wedding rings - please consider:
Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find [it]?
9 And when she hath found [it], she calleth [her] friends and [her] neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.
The woman will ransack the house looking for the missing piece of silver because it is part of her dowry. She wore these ten coins dangling from her veil as a token of her virtue for all the world to see. If even one coin is missing, in the eyes of the public her virtue is symbolically diminished.
And what is a wedding ring if not a nationally-recognized, publically-visible token of marital virtue and fidelity?
The Lord used this as an example because he knew that it would hold special poignance for his audience - the cultural impropriety associated with the missing coin would drive any virtuous woman of this time to a frantic and frenzied, desperate yet methodical, top-to-bottom search to find what was lost, and to experience such a surge of relief when what was lost is found that she throws an impromptu party. (of course, the house was now clean . . .  )
If the Lord found something amiss with this practice of outwardly indicating a woman's virtue with precious metals, He could have avoided using this analogy in his parable, or taken the opportunity to criticize the practice. But He didn't. He went right on ahead and used this one without batting an eye.
We need to accept and realize that the Lord is in favor of marriage, fidelity, and morality. He honors principles, not persons. And civil devices employed by various cultures to promote purity, virtue, and marital fidelity are only an offense to Him insomuch as they are no longer done in moderation and modesty.
I do believe I've found what I was looking for. The plain, smooth gold wedding ring on my left hand stays. As does the anaconda bone through my wife's nose. She's just today finally gotten used to it! What a little trooper! 
Thankyoualleversoveryverymuch!
Carl
__________________
Engineering solutions for theological problems.
Despite today's rising cost of living, it remains popular.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Sir Winston Churchill
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Benjamin Franklin
|
07-26-2007, 10:22 PM
|
 |
Unvaxxed Pureblood too
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 40,309
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truly Blessed
I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture and do not agree with your attempt to rule out the historical and cultural context of biblical teaching.
|
Rule out historical and cultural context? No problem TB, show me Jews prior and during the first century wearing wedding bands. Show me first century Christians wearing wedding bands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truly Blessed
I notice that you have avoided responding to my suggestion that it's not likely that you embrace everything that Paul taught, but like everyone else have selective tendencies. You don't embrace anything more than I embrace, you just embrace different things than I embrace. I wish you well.
|
Show me those first century Jews and Christains who wore gold or silver wedding bands.
I truely thank you for all the time you have invested into your posts.
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
__________________
"all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
|
07-26-2007, 10:31 PM
|
|
Unvaxxed Pureblood too
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 40,309
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truly Blessed
I've spent some time this afternoon reading through various commentaries and I haven't found anyone who embraces the position set forth by EB that Paul was forbidding the wearing of rings in 1Tim.2:9.
|
Excuse me? TB, is that what you found in reading my post? 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truly Blessed
What I read is consistent with my own understanding of what Paul is emphasizing, which is, what was proper for public worship for both men and women.
|
TB, I was correcting your assumption that Paul was making suggestions to the young evangelist Timothy. I have no idea where you are getting the above from.
Again, thank you for your time. I hope you and Felicity have a good time in the UPCI of Canada. I will be interested to see your research of those in the first century who used wedding rings within the Jewish and Christian cultures.
In Jesus Name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
__________________
"all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
|
07-26-2007, 10:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Wedding rings are a non issue for me....
I wear one...so does my wife.
I preach for those that do and take mine off when the Pastor I am preaching for asks me to.
BUT...as far as Bible....there is none that forbids it. Like anything else....modesty.
|
07-26-2007, 10:33 PM
|
 |
Go Dodgers!
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,789
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OP_Carl
Oh . . . My . . . Aching . . . . Eyeballs!
No wonder you folks have expressed such weariness with this topic! And I didn't make it all the way through yet!
I did unearth this jewel of yours. Once you guys were done with the fools business I think you very effectively reduced the argument to absurdity.
I think I may have some bible that applies more directly to the principle of wedding rings - please consider:
Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find [it]?
9 And when she hath found [it], she calleth [her] friends and [her] neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.
The woman will ransack the house looking for the missing piece of silver because it is part of her dowry. She wore these ten coins dangling from her veil as a token of her virtue for all the world to see. If even one coin is missing, in the eyes of the public her virtue is symbolically diminished.
And what is a wedding ring if not a nationally-recognized, publically-visible token of marital virtue and fidelity?
The Lord used this as an example because he knew that it would hold special poignance for his audience - the cultural impropriety associated with the missing coin would drive any virtuous woman of this time to a frantic and frenzied, desperate yet methodical, top-to-bottom search to find what was lost, and to experience such a surge of relief when what was lost is found that she throws an impromptu party. (of course, the house was now clean . . . )
If the Lord found something amiss with this practice of outwardly indicating a woman's virtue with precious metals, He could have avoided using this analogy in his parable, or taken the opportunity to criticize the practice. But He didn't. He went right on ahead and used this one without batting an eye.
We need to accept and realize that the Lord is in favor of marriage, fidelity, and morality. He honors principles, not persons. And civil devices employed by various cultures to promote purity, virtue, and marital fidelity are only an offense to Him insomuch as they are no longer done in moderation and modesty.
I do believe I've found what I was looking for. The plain, smooth gold wedding ring on my left hand stays. As does the anaconda bone through my wife's nose. She's just today finally gotten used to it! What a little trooper!
Thankyoualleversoveryverymuch!
Carl |
Some people opt for tungsten :-)
__________________
Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
- There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
- The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
- Every sinner must repent of their sins.
- That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
- That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
- The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
|
07-26-2007, 11:21 PM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,169
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
Rule out historical and cultural context? No problem TB, show me Jews prior and during the first century wearing wedding bands. Show me first century Christians wearing wedding bands.
Show me those first century Jews and Christains who wore gold or silver wedding bands.
I truely thank you for all the time you have invested into your posts.
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com |
I see. No one wore rings in the first century church and that is why Paul, according to your interpretation of 1Tim.2:9 was instructing them not to do something they weren't doing to begin with. Interesting. Of course I'm not the one who said the wearing of gold in this verse was referring to a ring that I can recall.
Why is it that ultra cons feel they have the liberty to take a verse completely out of its context to build a doctrine of holiness around it? In 1Timothy 2, Paul addresses propriety in public worship and cautions women against wearing gold, pearls, expensive clothes, because this could give the impression of proud public display, which is contrary to the true nature of worship where Christ is to be the central focus. Somehow this becomes a ban against wearing a ring, which a study of the Word shows, God has never forbid anyone to wear.
In 1Cor.11 Paul teaches on propriety in worship and instead of it being about worship ultra cons make it about hair and a doctrine of holiness issue. The hair only figured into the discourse because Paul was instructing the church at Corinth on what was honorable and respectful in the context of a mixed congregation worshipping God together.
I believe it's important that we interpret Scripture in its biblical, historical context rather than interpreting it in the context of some 21st century mindset someone has adopted intended to make them appear holier or more biblical than someone else.
|
07-26-2007, 11:30 PM
|
|
Go Dodgers!
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,789
|
|
|
The context, grammar and history suggests it was talking about weaving in the hair gold and pearls
__________________
Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
- There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
- The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
- Every sinner must repent of their sins.
- That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
- That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
- The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
|
07-26-2007, 11:41 PM
|
|
Shaking the dust off my shoes.
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Nunya bidness
Posts: 9,004
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
The context, grammar and history suggests it was talking about weaving in the hair gold and pearls
|
You are talking about broiding of hair, correct?
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:57 AM.
| |
Linear Mode
