Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by acerrak

thou a wedding ring or rings in general may have a pagen origin, it does not mean they are pagen today. Just because something was used in a way 3000 years ago doesnt mean it is applicable today.

"If the root be holy, so are the branches." The "root" of rings is not "holy," neither is its "branch."

I.e. 50 years ago if i said i was gay it would mean i was happy, but today if i use this expression it means i sleep with the same sex. so thus we dont use the term to explain happiness.

False category assimilation. Terms are not ornametal jewelry.

also if we consider rings pagen, then we put Christ in a place were He is using a pagen atribute to describe the Love of the lost son comming Home. luke 15:22

Lk. 15 describes a signet ring to seal documents, not decorative jewelry.

a wedding ring is not what weds a couple together but it is a symbol or a covenant symbol between you and your wife and not just a symbol but also to show that you are married. there is absolutly nothing wrong with a wedding ring.

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?