Paganism and Wedding Rings

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
There is more than one person in this forum who uses the argument that because paganism uses a particular symbol (or word), it is wrong for us to use the same symbol (or word). This is a particular logical fallacy known as guilt by association.

Let me give an example. Giving weddings rings as part of the wedding ceremony was originally a part of pagan rite. Yet today it is the standard part of Western culture. There is nothing wrong with it. Indeed I'd bet money that even those employing the argument which is the subject of this post themselves wear wedding rings if they are married (or have their wives do so).

Wedding ceremonies themselves are a pagan custom -- there is no Biblical mandate for them.

Another example of the history of paganism in contemporary life is the present calendar, especially the names of our weekdays. And yet I assume these few forum members have no qualms saying the term Wednesday (Woden's day) or the rest.

Embalming bodies was first done by the Egyptians. Placing flowers on graves or in graves was long a pagan custom.

Our money has pagan symbols on it. Should we stop using money?
 

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
There is more than one person in this forum who uses the argument that because paganism uses a particular symbol (or word), it is wrong for us to use the same symbol (or word). This is a particular logical fallacy known as guilt by association.

Let me give an example. Giving weddings rings as part of the wedding ceremony was originally a part of pagan rite. Yet today it is the standard part of Western culture. There is nothing wrong with it. Indeed I'd bet money that even those employing the argument which is the subject of this post themselves wear wedding rings if they are married (or have their wives do so).

Wedding ceremonies themselves are a pagan custom -- there is no Biblical mandate for them.

Another example of the history of paganism in contemporary life is the present calendar, especially the names of our weekdays. And yet I assume these few forum members have no qualms saying the term Wednesday (Woden's day) or the rest.

Embalming bodies was first done by the Egyptians. Placing flowers on graves or in graves was long a pagan custom.

Our money has pagan symbols on it. Should we stop using money?
Paul said in 1 Corinthians that idols are nothing, therefore, the rituals that once were pagan rituals and now have been adopted by Christians, have no spiritual effect on them. But Paul said that we should not do anything that might cause a brother or sister in Christ to do the same when that person actually believes it is a sin to do it. So if I go to a church where brothers and sisters believe it is a pagan thing and a sin to wear a wedding ring, I will take it off and not wear it to that church because I don't want to offend fellow Christians. But in other places where people don't have a problem with it, I will wear my wedding ring without any difficulties because I won't be offending anyone.
 
Upvote 0

EastCoastRemnant

I Must Decrease That He May Increase
Supporter
Dec 8, 2010
7,665
1,505
Nova Scotia
✟188,109.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Let me give an example. Giving weddings rings as part of the wedding ceremony was originally a part of pagan rite. Yet today it is the standard part of Western culture. There is nothing wrong with it. Indeed I'd bet money that even those employing the argument which is the subject of this post themselves wear wedding rings if they are married (or have their wives do so).
I wouldn't advise you to go to the casino...

The majority of SDA do not wear wedding bands or jewellery of any sort. Part of it is the association with pagans but also the admonitions given against outward adorning.

1 Timothy 2:9
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

1 Peter 3:3
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
I wouldn't advise you to go to the casino...

The majority of SDA do not wear wedding bands or jewellery of any sort. Part of it is the association with pagans but also the admonitions given against outward adorning.

1 Timothy 2:9
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

1 Peter 3:3
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
I grew up in a family where I was not allowed to braid my hair or wear jewelry. My mom still wore a wedding ring -- a plain gold band -- so that no man would think she was available.
 
Upvote 0

EastCoastRemnant

I Must Decrease That He May Increase
Supporter
Dec 8, 2010
7,665
1,505
Nova Scotia
✟188,109.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I grew up in a family where I was not allowed to braid my hair or wear jewelry. My mom still wore a wedding ring -- a plain gold band -- so that no man would think she was available.
Adventists don't worry about another thinking we're available because we don't entertain such flattery's. Of course, I'm talking about most SDA as there are some that commit adultery... and would have, ring or not.
 
Upvote 0

CherubRam

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2012
6,777
781
✟103,730.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oneness
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Strange gods or foreign gods were objects of praise.

Genesis 35:2

So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Get rid of the foreign gods you have with you, and purify yourselves and change your clothes.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Genesis 35:4
So they gave Jacob all the foreign gods they had and the rings in their ears, and Jacob buried them under the oak at Shechem.

Psalm 78:58
For they provoked him to anger with their high places, and moved him to jealousy with their graven images.
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
I wouldn't advise you to go to the casino...

The majority of SDA do not wear wedding bands or jewellery of any sort. Part of it is the association with pagans but also the admonitions given against outward adorning.



1 Timothy 2:9
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest
apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

1 Peter 3:3
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

Do you realize the quote from 1 Peter ,if taken literally, would imply women go nude?

ap·par·el
əˈperəl/
noun
USformal
  1. 1.
    clothing.
    synonyms: clothes, clothing, garments, dress, attire, wear, garb, getup;
Of course that was not the intent of Peter for women to go nude.
So there for we must comprehend the sermon narratives.
Paul used a clearer example by saying modest apparel.

For me God's Word is infallible, it is the comprehension by doctrine that fails.
As a S.D.A.member how do you view Romans 14?
I respect the SDA, but disagree with the dogmas in keeping parts of the Law.
I do not believe it is bad or Hearcy, just redeemed in Christ from the need for touch not taste not.
There are so many pagan symbols in our culture that if someone by happenstance has one , I believe God knows our hearts are pure.

If you drive certain cars or use certain products ,you may not know their pagan, symbolism.
I'm sure all of us have used Pagan advertised products not knowing the origin behind them.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,169
US
✟1,440,830.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is more than one person in this forum who uses the argument that because paganism uses a particular symbol (or word), it is wrong for us to use the same symbol (or word). This is a particular logical fallacy known as guilt by association.

Let me give an example. Giving weddings rings as part of the wedding ceremony was originally a part of pagan rite. Yet today it is the standard part of Western culture. There is nothing wrong with it. Indeed I'd bet money that even those employing the argument which is the subject of this post themselves wear wedding rings if they are married (or have their wives do so).

Wedding ceremonies themselves are a pagan custom -- there is no Biblical mandate for them.

Another example of the history of paganism in contemporary life is the present calendar, especially the names of our weekdays. And yet I assume these few forum members have no qualms saying the term Wednesday (Woden's day) or the rest.

Embalming bodies was first done by the Egyptians. Placing flowers on graves or in graves was long a pagan custom.

Our money has pagan symbols on it. Should we stop using money?

So what is your real point? Are you defending Christmas?

The issue is this:

Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places. You must not worship the LORD your God in their way.

The LORD your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same."
-- Deuteronomy 12

None of that other stuff--wedding rings, embalming bodies, days of the week--are practices of worship. None of them has anything to do with either how pagans worshiped their gods or how we worship our God.

Christmas, however, does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HARK!
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CherubRam

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2012
6,777
781
✟103,730.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oneness
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Strange gods or foreign gods were objects of praise.

Genesis 35:2

So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Get rid of the foreign gods you have with you, and purify yourselves and change your clothes.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Genesis 35:4
So they gave Jacob all the foreign gods they had and the rings in their ears, and Jacob buried them under the oak at Shechem.

Psalm 78:58
For they provoked him to anger with their high places, and moved him to jealousy with their graven images.
Rings were first given to temple prostitutes.
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Do you realize the quote from 1 Peter ,if taken literally, would imply women go nude?

ap·par·el
əˈperəl/
noun
USformal
  1. 1.
    clothing.
    synonyms: clothes, clothing, garments, dress, attire, wear, garb, getup;
Of course that was not the intent of Peter for women to go nude.
So there for we must comprehend the sermon narratives.
Paul used a clearer example by saying modest apparel.

For me God's Word is infallible, it is the comprehension by doctrine that fails.
As a S.D.A.member how do you view Romans 14?
I respect the SDA, but disagree with the dogmas in keeping parts of the Law.
I do not believe it is bad or Hearcy, just redeemed in Christ from the need for touch not taste not.
There are so many pagan symbols in our culture that if someone by happenstance has one , I believe God knows our hearts are pure.

If you drive certain cars or use certain products ,you may not know their pagan, symbolism.
I'm sure all of us have used Pagan advertised products not knowing the origin behind them.
Peter's description of being dressed in a gentle spirit brings it to light to mean the church.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,684
8,037
US
✟1,060,379.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Our money has pagan symbols on it. Should we stop using money?

It's not lawful money. It's fiat currency; and yes we should purge that wickedness from our nation, for more Biblical reasons than the wicked symbols on those wicked notes.

12 U.S.C. § 411 : US Code - Section 411: Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of
making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal
reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose,
are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United
States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and
Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public
dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the
Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of
Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

12 U.S.C. § 411 - U.S. Code Title 12. Banks and Banking § 411 | FindLaw


A Phone Call To The Fed
From Dan Benham ©1988-2002
d.benham@worldnet.att.net
9-8-2

The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation.
CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?
MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government.
CALLER - That's not my question. Is it owned by my country?
MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by congress.
CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI - No, it is owned by the member banks.
CALLER - Are the member banks private corporations?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?
MR. SUPINSKI-Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people.
CALLER - Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI - The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets.
CALLER - What are these assets composed of?
MR. SUPINSKI - Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.
CALLER - What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books?
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold.
CALLER - Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes.
CALLER - Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?
MR. SUPINSKI - They are authorized by the Treasury.
CALLER - How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?
MR. SUPINSKI - Fifty to seventy cents.
CALLER - How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note?
MR. SUPINSKI - The same fifty to seventy cents.
CALLER - To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn't it?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?
MR. SUPINSKI - That is probably close.
CALLER - Doesn't the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, but there is more to it than that.
CALLER - Basically, that is what happens?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, basically you are correct.
CALLER - How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI - $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.
CALLER - Where did they go?
MR. SUPINSKI - Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.
CALLER - Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know.
CALLER - If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?
MR. SUPINSKI - No
CALLER - Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?
MR. SUPINSKI - About $7.
CALLER - Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were "created out of thin air " in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI - That is part of the reason.
CALLER - Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation's money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?
MR. SUPINSKI - Basically, yes.
CALLER - I smell a rat, do you?
MR. SUPINSKI - I am sorry, I can't answer that, I work here.
CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited?
MR. SUPINSKI - We are audited.
CALLER - Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know.
CALLER - Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?
MR. SUPINSKI - I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department.
CALLER - I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn't it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't think so, but we were created by Congress.
CALLER - Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution?
MR. SUPINSKI - I understand what you are saying.
CALLER - Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn't this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?
MR. SUPINSKI - (Declined to answer).
CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?
MR. SUPINSKI - I believe there has been court cases on the matter.
CALLER - Have there been Supreme Court Cases?
MR. SUPINSKI - I think so, but I am not sure.
CALLER - Didn't the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? ["The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons." Carter vs. Carter Coal Co...]
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know, I can refer you to our legal department.
CALLER - Isn't the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?
MR. SUPINSKI - It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.
CALLER - What is the solution?
MR. SUPINSKI - The Debit Card.
CALLER - Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn't that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it's agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us. Isn't that kind of scary?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, it makes you wonder.
CALLER - I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren't we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers?
MR. SUPINSKI - I can't call it tribute, it is interest.
CALLER - Haven't all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn't the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?
MR. SUPINSKI - I can't say that.
CALLER - Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason. Isn't the punishment of treason death?
MR. SUPINSKI - I believe so.
CALLER - Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.
MR. SUPINSKI - It doesn't look good.
CALLER - May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse.
MR. SUPINSKI - Unfortunately, it does not look good.
CALLER - Have a good day and thanks for your time.
MR. SUPINSKI - Thanks for calling.
If the reader has any doubts to the validity of this conversation, call your nearest Federal Reserve Bank, YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS TO ASK! You won't find them listed under the Federal Government. They are in the white pages, along with Federal Express, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and any other business. Find out for yourself if all this is true.
And then, go to your local law library and look up the case of Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982. It reads in part: "Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the federal reserve are NOT federal instrumentality's . . but are independent and privately owned and controlled corporations - federal reserve banks are listed neither as "wholly-owned' government corporations [under 31 USC Section 846] nor as 'mixed ownership' corporations [under 31 USC Section 856] . . . 28 USC Sections 1346(b), 2671. '
Federal agency' is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentality's of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States . . . There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of the federal government control over the 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operations' of that entity.
Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . . whether the government is involved in the entity's finances, . . . and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities ...
It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks . . . The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act . . . Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act.
Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services . . . Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 USC Section 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims . . ." According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, "When the Federal Reserve was created, its stock was sold to the member banks." ("The Hats The Federal Reserve Wears," published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia).
The original Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller's, JP Morgan, Rothschild's, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. The MONEYCHANGERS wanted to be insured they had a monopoly over our money supply, so Congress passed into law Title 12, Section 284 of the United States Code. Section 284 specifically states, "NO STOCK ALLOWED TO THE US" *
Monopoly - "A privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right [or power] to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity, A form of market structure in which only a few firms dominate the total sales of a product or service.
'Monopoly,' as prohibited by Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, has two elements: possession of a monopoly power in relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior power, business acumen, or historical product. A monopoly condemned by the Sherman Act is the power to fix prices, or exclude competition, coupled with policies designed to use and preserve that power." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition) The Federal Reserve Act goes one step farther, "No Senator or Representative in Congress shall be a member of the Federal Reserve Board or an officer or director of a Federal Reserve Bank." They didn't want We The People to have any say in the operation of their monopoly through our elected officials.

A Phone Call To The Fed

I could go on for pages!
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Peter's description of being dressed in a gentle spirit brings it to light to mean the church.

Being dressed in a gentle Spirit?
Ok let's look.

1 Peter 3: 1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

I see in verse 4 the logical answer ,would be a meek and quiet Spirit is pleasing to God.
Verse 5 refers back in time, and reccomends the practice continue.
The context is that a modest Woman is pleasing to God and to Her Husband as well.
There is no mention of a Church or Church authority over a Marriage.
That interpretation is simply denomational dogmatism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,684
8,037
US
✟1,060,379.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
None of that other stuff--wedding rings, embalming bodies, days of the week--are practices of worship. None of them has anything to do with either how pagans worshiped their gods or how we worship our God.

The whole Gregorian calendar is built on sun worship that goes back to Nimrod.

Names of the days of the week - Wikipedia


(CLV) Jer 51:44
I will call on Bel to account in Babylon And bring forth from his mouth what he has swallowed; Not longer shall nations stream to him; Even the wall of Babylon will fall.
(CLV) Jer 51:45
Come forth from her midst, My people, And escape, each with his soul, from the heat of Yahweh's anger!

(CLV) Re 18:4
And I hear another voice out of heaven, saying, "Come out of her, My people, lest you should be joint participants in her sins, and lest you should be getting of her calamities,
(CLV) Re 18:5
for her sins were piled up to heaven, and God remembers her injuries.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,684
8,037
US
✟1,060,379.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
There is more than one person in this forum who uses the argument that because paganism uses a particular symbol (or word), it is wrong for us to use the same symbol (or word). This is a particular logical fallacy known as guilt by association.

Let me give an example. Giving weddings rings as part of the wedding ceremony was originally a part of pagan rite. Yet today it is the standard part of Western culture. There is nothing wrong with it. Indeed I'd bet money that even those employing the argument which is the subject of this post themselves wear wedding rings if they are married (or have their wives do so).

Wedding ceremonies themselves are a pagan custom -- there is no Biblical mandate for them.

Another example of the history of paganism in contemporary life is the present calendar, especially the names of our weekdays. And yet I assume these few forum members have no qualms saying the term Wednesday (Woden's day) or the rest.

Embalming bodies was first done by the Egyptians. Placing flowers on graves or in graves was long a pagan custom.

Our money has pagan symbols on it. Should we stop using money?

Why do you insist on trying to justify Paganism?
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Being dressed in a gentle Spirit?
Ok let's look.

1 Peter 3: 1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

I see in verse 4 the logical answer ,would be a meek and quiet Spirit is pleasing to God.
Verse 5 refers back in time, and reccomends the practice continue.
The context is that a modest Woman is pleasing to God and to Her Husband as well.
There is no mention of a Church or Church authority over a Marriage.
That interpretation is simply denomational dogmatism.
It's denominational dogmatism that I'll keep too, thank you very much.
After singling out slaves and exhorting them to be submissive to their masters and patiently endure unjust punishment Peter then moved on to Christian wives who had unsaved husbands (not at all the topic at hand) Wives that were seeking to win husbands to the Lord Jesus. They were going about it the wrong way and Peter corrected them in that. Which would mean equality was the norm when both were believers. Those husbands were not people who would listen to reason on hearing the gospel so the best sermon was preached by example. "That even if they obey not the word they may without a word be won" They weren't men who didn't know the gospel. Incompatabilty in religion didn't justify dissolution of marraige so subjection would be a means which God could use to win their husbands to His way.

The pious living being promoted didn't depend on outer adornment to effect the change alike before they were saved so as not to appeal to their husband's depraved nature. Kosmos - adornment - is the opposite of chaos. Her adornment was to be in keeping with her Christian status. One that was fitting and not diverse from one's character. Proceeding from the heart. So as to confront the husband not with the world but with the Savior. i.e.: Not feeding his sin nature but appeling to the conscience. Iow from the inner spiritual being. Romans 12:2

No one can serve 2 masters. The term lord referred to near relatives, father, mother etc while John uses the same Greek word to refer to the 'elect lady' in his epistle. "As long as the believing wives are doing good, they need not be afraid with any sudden terror of the account which their unbelieving husbands may exact from them"
 
Upvote 0

Heber Book List

Theologian [Applied Theology]
Jul 1, 2015
2,609
851
Whippingham, Isle of Wight, England
✟132,416.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
There is more than one person in this forum who uses the argument that because paganism uses a particular symbol (or word), it is wrong for us to use the same symbol (or word). This is a particular logical fallacy known as guilt by association.

Let me give an example. Giving weddings rings as part of the wedding ceremony was originally a part of pagan rite. Yet today it is the standard part of Western culture. There is nothing wrong with it. Indeed I'd bet money that even those employing the argument which is the subject of this post themselves wear wedding rings if they are married (or have their wives do so).

Wedding ceremonies themselves are a pagan custom -- there is no Biblical mandate for them.

Another example of the history of paganism in contemporary life is the present calendar, especially the names of our weekdays. And yet I assume these few forum members have no qualms saying the term Wednesday (Woden's day) or the rest.

Embalming bodies was first done by the Egyptians. Placing flowers on graves or in graves was long a pagan custom.

Our money has pagan symbols on it. Should we stop using money?

The whole concept of having bridesmaids has its origin in the middle ages belief that Satan exists, as does having some sort of spike or other steel protrusion on the four corners of a roof. They are not particularly pagan.

Weddings were never to do with the Church - in the middle ages the Lord of the Manor performed the marriage. It came to the Church to do marriages because of corruption and 'shot-gun' weddings to protect women against being kidnapped for marriage; the Church built an elaborate service around the wedding. In the UK a marriage only has validity if the correct legal statements (verbatim) are made by bride and groom in an open service (it is illegal to lock the doors at a marriage ceremony in the UK), and is witnessed by a legally appointed person, who does not have to be anything to do with religion, and two other people as independent witnesses. A law was passed in the UK that made it illegal to get married before 10 in the morning and after 6pm in the evening, to ensure that it was carried out within reasonable 'daylight' hours - this law has recently been annulled. A law was passed that legally required that notice of a marriage be required; this was the forerunner of notices being published in the press of intended marriages - now notice must must still be given in official ways.

In essence, in the UK, a marriage boils down to a legal agreement which has to spoken by bride and groom and witnessed by a legally appointed person and two witnesses who may, or may not, be related to the couple being married. Marriages may only be performed in a premises properly licensed by the Registrar General's office.

People may be interested to know that marriages may be carried out on the war time fort in the Solent, provided bride and groom pay for boats to ferry anyone (literally) who wants to be at the wedding, to attend. This is derived from the law that marriages must be open to the public at all times, never behind locked doors!
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

EastCoastRemnant

I Must Decrease That He May Increase
Supporter
Dec 8, 2010
7,665
1,505
Nova Scotia
✟188,109.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Do you realize the quote from 1 Peter ,if taken literally, would imply women go nude?

ap·par·el
əˈperəl/
noun
USformal
  1. 1.
    clothing.
    synonyms: clothes, clothing, garments, dress, attire, wear, garb, getup;
Of course that was not the intent of Peter for women to go nude.
So there for we must comprehend the sermon narratives.
Paul used a clearer example by saying modest apparel.

For me God's Word is infallible, it is the comprehension by doctrine that fails.
As a S.D.A.member how do you view Romans 14?
I respect the SDA, but disagree with the dogmas in keeping parts of the Law.
I do not believe it is bad or Hearcy, just redeemed in Christ from the need for touch not taste not.
There are so many pagan symbols in our culture that if someone by happenstance has one , I believe God knows our hearts are pure.

If you drive certain cars or use certain products ,you may not know their pagan, symbolism.
I'm sure all of us have used Pagan advertised products not knowing the origin behind them.
I agree that a verse in isolation is not valid instruction but when used with a second witness such as 1 Timothy 2:9 that clarifies the apparel to be modest. Both passages however, speak against the wearing of gold or jewels (jewellery).
 
Upvote 0