[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.