Wading through the wedding rings

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Rico

You are talking about broiding of hair, correct?

Yes. See a recent previous post where I quoted a commentator on the topic

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes. See a recent previous post where I quoted a commentator on the topic

I used to think that broiding was the same thing as what we know today as braiding. Imagine my shock and surprise at finding out they are very different practices!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Rico

You are talking about broidering of hair, correct?

In fact the UPC does not take a stand against braided hair.....because they actually did the research on this one and discovered it was not talking about braids, but a custom among Roman women of competing hair dos with elaborate weaves with ornaments and piling it on higher and higher

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Rico

I used to think that broiding was the same thing as what we know today as braiding. Imagine my shock and surprise at finding out they are very different practices!

Yup lol...

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

In fact the UPC does not take a stand against braided hair.....because they actually did the research on this one and discovered it was not talking about braids, but a custom among Roman women of competing hair dos with elaborate weaves with ornaments and piling it on higher and higher

It was a UPC preacher that initially told me I had the two practices confused. After I studied it out for myself I had no choice but to discard the belief that braiding hair is wrong. It is one of those "standards" I had been taught in my uc days.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

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.

Really age is catching up to you TB? What are you talking about? You know you might try a little warm milk with some nice cookies.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

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?

Thank you for the nice invalidations. Don't ever complain about conservatives. It was you TB, who posted that Paul was making some suggestions to Timothy in 1st Timothy not me. Did you even care to reply to what I offered? No, you just came back with "I don't agree". Not much one can respond to.


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.[/quote]

TB, where is the wedding band used in the first century to show that men and women were married. I was not the one who brought up Timothy that was you. Maybe you need to go back and see what you typed. In your theology it doesn't matter what Paul said in 1st Timothy chapter 2, due to Paul only speaking to Timothy about the first century culture, which in your book doesn't mean anything for us today, and they say Preterists think the Bible is a history book? HA!

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

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.

Nice job TB, 1st Corinthians 11 has nothing to do with hair, but it ultimately has something to do with hair? O K, I'm a believer.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

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.

TB, you claimed that what Paul wrote about is no longer for us in the 21st century and was outdated and not fitting with our culture American and Canadian (I would guess). Therefore we can just work around the framework of 1st Timothy 2 and 1st Corinthians 11 in that I would strongly disagree.
These letters were not only admonishing elders in the church how to conduct worship in their times but making practice for every other church throughout time.

Roman Catholic Church also uses your argument to prove how their Church evolved throughout the ages and therefore making the RCC the original church.

Any way why are you and Sister Felicity joining up with the UPCI if you don't believe in the same issues that the UPCI believe?


In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Rico

I used to think that broiding was the same thing as what we know today as braiding. Imagine my shock and surprise at finding out they are very different practices!

No Bro, broiding is what you do with a steak and nice thick steak.

[Pressing-On]

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

Wow! Good post!

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Just for the record...

I felt that God was highly pleased when I made my darling wife very happy with her almost 3ct. diamond. Best investment that I ever made.

The libs and ultra-cons may fuss and argue over the finer points of scripture, though totally misunderstood...but I've had enough of this non productive discussion of days gone by.

It's time to grow up. Any attempt to humbly please the Lord in all things, whether it be to wear or not wear a ring is indeed commendable. Nothing can be said to argue that point. I applaud that attitude. It is an attitude that I carefully assume also. Suggestion: Let us also try to humbly please the Lord in the attitude that we have toward those who do not see the finer points in the exact same way that we see them. The dispicable attitude to be shunned in ourselves is the one that secretly seem themselves holier than others because of their naked, ringless finger. That is truly dispicalble.

I'm really shocked.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I teach against rings period on the hand-ears-toes-nose. Rings are jewelry which those passages you cite says NOT to wear. Since i have no idea how much I could possibly wear and not be in violation of the principle of this passage I wear none.
Then the wedding ring itself is pagan in nature and was christianized by the Roman church thus it is not pleasing to the Lord. Rome is not only the Mother of Harlots, she is also the Mother of Abominations.
I realize jewelry was suffered in the OT as was polygamy-divorce-vengence-etc. but in times of consecration both personally and nationally they ridded themselves of their jewelry. Jewelry has a long association with Idolatry & pride in Scripture datign back to the fall of Lucifer.
NO Apostolic child of God should wear ornamental jewelry and every true man of God should teach against it.

Thank you.