Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[HRea]

With all of the excellent discussions that have taken place on AFF, did I miss the miss the call for scripture that continues this command to the New Testament church?

[Narrow Is The Way]

You guys are out of your league on this one. We haven't even got to the New Testament yet.
Anybody done a study yet on 1 Timothy 2:9? You need to get some older dictionaries out and find out what words mean.

Apparel today is a very general term that means "any article of clothing." But in the year 1611 the word "apparel" meant "loose, long flowing garment?" Look it up in an old Oxford English Dictionary that has the archaic meanings of words. The Greek word for Apparel is katastole which is an EXACTING WORD meaning a LONG FLOWING GARMENT, This is the ONLY place in the Bible where it is used. What part of a pair of pants is a long flowing garment.There are lots of words for clothing, attire, etc., but this word comes from a verb form which means "to lower." It denoted a loose-fitting outer garment, which was LONG. You can argue this all day long but a pair of pants is NOT a long FLOWING garment.

I don't care how anybody tries to explain this away, we need to find out what these words meant when they were written, not what is claimed they mean now.
I know we are all guilty of finding meanings using webster, etc. but a serious matter like this requires us to look further into the scripture and get ahold of the spirit in which the scripture is written.

[mfblume]

NITW, you are grasping for straws, and need to realize God did not design pants for men. CULTURE DID. And you accepted the CULTURAL change from robes to pants because it happened before you were born,. Now that your life has seen the transition of women's clothing from dresses to pants, you refuse to accept it. Had you been born before robes changed to pants for men, and saw the transition in your lifetime,k you would have rejected it. You are arguing ANYTHING to hold onto your teaching given to you by standard keepers. This is like the Catholics arguing ANYTHING to continue to pray to Mary. It's not an honest dialogue you are accomplishing, but one in which you will say ANYTHING in order to not think of yourself as wrong. And that stems from a fleshly pride that is not humble enough to admit you may be wrong.

Many many people feel scared if they consider what they were taught was wrong. This throws many into a tailspin that makes them wonder what else might be wrong, and that is a scary sense if having NO SECURITY. So, they fight for what they believe to ridiculous extents while all the while they are really fearful that their whole world will tumble down if they realize they were wrong on clothing.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

NITW, you are grasping for straws, and need to realize God did not design pants for men. CULTURE DID. And you accepted the CULTURAL change from robes to pants because it happened before you were born,. Now that your life has seen the transition of women's clothing from dresses to pants, you refuse to accept it.

I think we should also look at where this change in culture began. If you study the transition of women from dress to pants, you will find that the women in France, who were involved in politics, began the culture change. The Rational Dress Society in England picked up on that and moved it along to America, where the women in Hollywood championed the change. So, I'm just thinking that I want to see who is instrumental is any type of culture change. And, as is normally true, it is politics and Hollywood that are the strongest voices.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think we should also look at where this change in culture began. If you study the transition of women from dress to pants, you will find that the women in France, who were involved in politics, began the culture change. The Rational Dress Society in England picked up on that and moved it along to America, where the women in Hollywood championed the change. So, I'm just thinking that I want to see who is instrumental is any type of culture change. And, as is normally true, it is politics and Hollywood that are the strongest voices.

I don't disagree except to say that is has probably always been the political class and "upper crust" that lead the way in fashions, from the stone age to present day.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I don't disagree except to say that is has probably always been the political class and "upper crust" that lead the way in fashions, from the stone age to present day.

Yes, Randy, very true. Money talks and you know the rest.

[Sister Alvear]

money...honey...

[NorCal]

I don't understand how "Christians" can stand for a practice that was born out of rebellion in the 1920's.
May you stand with Cora.

In horse back riding, there is a even a way designed to compensate for a woman rider. It's called SIDESADDLE. It was used for 1000's of years. I think it's funny that we are still having this discussion based on a rebellion and women's lib of the 1920's

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by NorCal

I don't understand how "Christians" can stand for a practice that was born out of rebellion in the 1920's.

My you stand with Cora.

In horse back riding, there is a even a way designed to compensate for a women rider. It's called SIDESADDLE. It was used for 1000's of years. I think it's funny that we are still having this discussion based on a rebellion and women's lib of the 1920's

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by NorCal

I don't understand how "Christians" can stand for a practice that was born out of rebellion in the 1920's.
May you stand with Cora.

In horse back riding, there is a even a way designed to compensate for a woman rider. It's called SIDESADDLE. It was used for 1000's of years. I think it's funny that we are still having this discussion based on a rebellion and women's lib of the 1920's

Don't ask me why, but I find myself humming the theme from Maude here.