Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

I didn't say all rings, but wedding rings came for paganism.


Many churches consider themselves against jewelry, but if they have wedding rings/watches they are not against jewelry.

Some say it's just to say they are married, but have a huge one with diamonds you can see across the room. obviously more then showing they are married.

Good preaching TruthSeeker !

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

So I wonder do you celibrate Christmas, Easter, birthdays etc. These all being based on idolatrous celibrations and not scripture. But then I might even go so far to say that our present day church buildings are based on idol worshiping temples.

Birthdays do not mingle the Holy Name of God w/ Babylonian doctrines. Christ-Mass, "Ishtar," etc. are guilty of the "Syncretical Fallacy." The early church met in houses [i.e., a building...minus the steeple].

Gods design was one tabernacle, no local places of meeting, everyone was to come to Jerusalem on the feast days. The rest of the time they only came to the tabernacle other than that is for sacrifice for sin.

In present day we are the tabernacle of God so where do we get this idea we need a church building?

Very good, which is precisely the reason we don't decorate God's tabernacle...just as they didn't the OT tabernacle! You're getting closer.....

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

What meaning and value do they have today?

If the color green used to be used for occult but today shares nothing about that representation or value statement, then why wouldn't you wear it?

Our culture today finds wedding bands to be symbolic of marriage -- a very noble thing today.

Much of our "culture" also finds same-sex marriage "noble." What will ye do w/ this...since you're appealing to modern culture over & against the Bible [I Tim. 2:9, I Ptr. 3:3]? Wedding rings violate the plain written Bible & I, for one [as well as many others I know], refuse to pastor a church full of them.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Pagans using color is not the same as creating a ring specifically for pagan reasons. Now whether it looses it'sm pagan intent being acceptable for christian wear is the issue.

How far removed form pagan intent can christians partake of a pagan custom? At what point is it deemed acceptable? 1 year out, 2yr, 10yrs, 100yrs etc....

Why...didn't you know that the length of time "sanctifies" an issue in the eyes of God...who doesn't even dwell in the confines of time !!!

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by rdp

Very good, which is precisely the reason we don't decorate God's tabernacle...just as they didn't the OT tabernacle! You're getting closer.....

Wow have you not read Revelations 21 the tabernacle of God and new Jerusalem (the bride of Christ), Or Ezekiel 1 Even the tabernacle in the OT had specific instructions as to the outside as to protect the Glory of the inside. God loves beutiful things else he would not have created those things as he did. The differance is that God does not want us to be wrapped up in those things. Does not make them sin.

Are we to dress gaudily? no. On the same note dressing up for church can be likend to the same thing Paul and Peter were teaching against. We are to be ourselves before God. We do not respect the church building by dressing up to go to church as we are the temple of God, when we are dirty after a hard days work or right after a shower. LOL God does not look at the outside thank God. He lookes at the heart of the man. Instead of looking at whether some one wears a bit of gold we should instead the teaching the true nature of a christian. The rest will take care of itself in time.

We consentrate so much on changing the outside and it does not change what a person thinks.

God did not put us hear to dictate how a person dresses, he put us hear to tell the world that he came to earth to pay the price for our sinful nature so that we can have our relationship restored with him. When this has been completed in the lives of the indiviual God can and will bring about the needed changes he desires. He did not put his minstery in the body to dictate to (his children) how to live. We are here to equip the saints to do the work to ministry to the lost.

I think we need to quit trying to save the saved, and turn to the lost.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by rdp

Wedding rings directly violate the context of I Ptr. 3, which was discussion of the marriage life, instructing imperatively "not with gold....". Wedding rings are "absolutely" wrong. It has always been the habit of mankind to make invisible covenants visible, then tenaciously cling to the "symbol." Hmmm, why not literally wear the "symbol" of the baptism covenant initiation?

again just because you call it pagen doesnt make it pagen. there is nothing wrong with a ring. jews gave there betrovals wedding veils with small peices of silver on it. they are many instatnces in the bible were God Himself said He clothed israel with fine garments and jewlery.


Circumscision was a covenant , men today inter into covenants with signed contracts, The woman of those days used the jewlery to show off status, and some were being flattering with it. Though we have had wedding rings in church as early as 100 a.d. -150 a.d. that showed a marriage between to. There is nothing wrong with it.

it doesnt matter how you want to bring about it there are men such as joseph, mordicai that wore them.

when a bride was taken the groom was to pay a dowery, and over time the ring was used as the dowery.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by rdp

Much of our "culture" also finds same-sex marriage "noble." What will ye do w/ this...since you're appealing to modern culture over & against the Bible [I Tim. 2:9, I Ptr. 3:3]? Wedding rings violate the plain written Bible & I, for one [as well as many others I know], refuse to pastor a church full of them.

Cultural symbols such as fashion, food, clothing, etc are much different than morality-based concepts that have an abundance of unison agreement since the beginning of time. Not to mention we are talking behaviors versus abstract objects.

Homosexuality is not a symbol nor defined symbolically. It may be more out in the open today than in the past couple hundred years, but homosexuality is homosexuality and always has been homosexuality. In fact, there were other times periods where it was even more predominant, though still sharing social stigmatism. I'm not a cultural relativists -- though I admit there is a part cultural relativism plays in defining non-essential matters.

Wearing the color for a Russian less than 100 years ago was unthinkable unless you were part of the Communist Party. The color today does not have such symbols associated with it. There is nothing intrinsically or morally wrong with the color red.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Wow have you not read Revelations 21 the tabernacle of God and new Jerusalem (the bride of Christ), Or Ezekiel 1 Even the tabernacle in the OT had specific instructions as to the outside as to protect the Glory of the inside. God loves beutiful things else he would not have created those things as he did. The differance is that God does not want us to be wrapped up in those things. Does not make them sin.

Well said..."the glory of the [read closely here] INSIDE"...not outside. Flagrant & willful disobedience to God's Word [I Tim. 2:9, I Ptr. 3:3, Is. 3, Deut. 7:25] is indeed "sin".

Are we to dress gaudily? no. On the same note dressing up for church can be likend to the same thing Paul and Peter were teaching against. We are to be ourselves before God. We do not respect the church building by dressing up to go to church as we are the temple of God, when we are dirty after a hard days work or right after a shower.

I see, so you would "dress" up to take your wife out to eat, but, sorry, Jesus is not worthy of the same????? Moreover, since you fella's like to appeal to the OT priests, they "dressed up" for worship! You guys are a hoot! Oh yea', nice concession above that Paul was indeed "teaching against" elaborate attire. Funny how you concede the points when you're not paying attention to detail.

N-O I'm not talking about ostentatiousness, but rather neat presentability in church today.

LOL God does not look at the outside thank God.

Then I presume that I can preach next Sunday in a pair of boxers, since "God does not look on the outside"....right????? Get real.....



He lookes at the heart of the man. Instead of looking at whether some one wears a bit of gold we should instead the teaching the true nature of a christian. The rest will take care of itself in time.

And "the tree is known by its fruit." Ho-Hum, the ol' "heart" argument. For about the 1,000,000,000th time in my life, I say that what's in the heart will always manifest itself outwardly....which is precisely why I know that the world is in you guys' heart.

We consentrate so much on changing the outside and it does not change what a person thinks.

God did not put us hear to dictate how a person dresses, he put us hear to tell the world that he came to earth to pay the price for our sinful nature so that we can have our relationship restored with him. When this has been completed in the lives of the indiviual God can and will bring about the needed changes he desires. He did not put his minstery in the body to dictate to (his children) how to live. We are here to equip the saints to do the work to ministry to the lost.

We do not "dictate" how a person dresses, but we certainly teach the Bible! "LOL" indeed! "The work of the ministry" involves teaching biblical principles including [not excluding] I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3.

I think we need to quit trying to save the saved, and turn to the lost.

I think we need to reevaluate whether or not one is "saved" who renders the clear teachings of the Bible ineffective.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by acerrak

again just because you call it pagen doesnt make it pagen. there is nothing wrong with a ring. jews gave there betrovals wedding veils with small peices of silver on it. they are many instatnces in the bible were God Himself said He clothed israel with fine garments and jewlery.

Ho-Hum, you need to go back reread how many times I've already dealt w/ this in this thread. Will not take the time to repeat it.


Circumscision was a covenant , men today inter into covenants with signed contracts,

Do you "wear" your "signed contract" of Jesus' Name baptism today [if you've even obeyed that]? Not hardly....

The woman of those days used the jewlery to show off status, and some were being flattering with it. Though we have had wedding rings in church as early as 100 a.d. -150 a.d. that showed a marriage between to. There is nothing wrong with it.

Denial is not evidence. Wedding rings violate the Bible...period. I Ptr. 3 deals w/ the marriage life & it explicitly states "Not with...gold..." do believe those words? Obviously not.

it doesnt matter how you want to bring about it there are men such as joseph, mordicai that wore them.

when a bride was taken the groom was to pay a dowery, and over time the ring was used as the dowery.

Yea' & where was Joseph at? Egypt...which God calls us out of! Try again.....

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Cultural symbols such as fashion, food, clothing, etc are much different than morality-based concepts that have an abundance of unison agreement since the beginning of time. Not to mention we are talking behaviors versus abstract objects.

Homosexuality is not a symbol nor defined symbolically. It may be more out in the open today than in the past couple hundred years, but homosexuality is homosexuality and always has been homosexuality. In fact, there were other times periods where it was even more predominant, though still sharing social stigmatism. I'm not a cultural relativists -- though I admit there is a part cultural relativism plays in defining non-essential matters.

Wearing the color for a Russian less than 100 years ago was unthinkable unless you were part of the Communist Party. The color today does not have such symbols associated with it. There is nothing intrinsically or morally wrong with the color red.

I would disagree that the wearing of decorative ornaments is not a "bahaviour." If I deck out in jewels from head to toe, fine linens, etc....is this not "behaviour"? Of course it is.

Much more to say, but gotta' run......