Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You've misunderstood my posts if you think I am contending for standards. But, if that issue is on the shoulder, like a Dorito, then everything being discussed is futile.

True!

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by mfblume

He cannot prove it and no one can prove anything to him, because he has made himself believe Deut 22:5 is saying that only men wear PANTS, when he totally disregards the fact that CULTURE determined PANTS on men, not God (since God made man a robe in Genesis). He accepted the CULTURAL change from robes to pants for men, but think the same thing cannot happen for women, when culture clearly did say women wear pants, too. Had he lived in the day when robes changed over to pants for men, he would have bucked and said "NO, ROBES are for men." He begins from the standpoint of what is in fashion when he came into the world and sticks to that worldly fashion and somehow reasons God into it.

Very nicely summed up.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

You guys are out of your league on this one. .

We're out of our leauge.

That's just plain funny.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You've misunderstood my posts if you think I am contending for standards. But, if that issue is on the shoulder, like a Dorito, then everything being discussed is futile.

I was not even thinking of your posts when I said what I did. It was luke2447 an narrow's. But your words on origins of pants for women seemed to suggest you believe women should not wear pants.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

He cannot prove it and no one can prove anything to him, because he has made himself believe Deut 22:5 is saying that only men wear PANTS, when he totally disregards the fact that CULTURE determined PANTS on men, not God (since God made man a robe in Genesis). He accepted the CULTURAL change from robes to pants for men, but think the same thing cannot happen for women, when culture clearly did say women wear pants, too. Had he lived in the day when robes changed over to pants for men, he would have bucked and said "NO, ROBES are for men." He begins from the standpoint of what is in fashion when he came into the world and sticks to that worldly fashion and somehow reasons God into it.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I was not even thinking of your posts when I said what I did. It was luke2447 an narrow's. But your words on origins of pants for women seemed to suggest you believe women should not wear pants.

I was simply stating that a cultural change for women came about and it was interesting, to me, who got that ball rolling.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by 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.

"You guys are out of your league..." ... ever the cry of the Philistine and other unlearned men.

The roots for the Greek word "katastole" καταστολή means literally: "to fasten down." "kata" = "down" or "downward" & "stole" = "secure from the base." If anything, the literal meaning runs counter to "narrow's" use of "flowing."

1 Timothy 2:9, is the only occurrence of the word in the NT - that's what should have given "narrow" pause. Without other Scriptural usages to help him to discern the meaning, he simply ran amok with his own cultural application.

However, in the Septuagint (the Bible of the first century apostles) katastole is used in Isaiah 61:3. Here the word is translated into English as "garment."

"To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified."

The apostles read that in Greek. When they quoted the OT, it was almost always from the Greek Septuagint. How could they have come away from that reading and thought "katastole" was a "woman's garment" exclusively?

As to old English uses of the word "apparel:" The word meant simply "to prepare." It comes from the Latin word "apparare" from whence we also get "apparatus."

[Arphaxad]

Originally Posted by Charnock

One thing I've never understood. If we're really trying to be "Apostolic" why don't we dress like first century Christians (everybody in robes)?

I mean, really, why rage at the cultural shift of the 40s and 50s when it's obvious western culture and dress hasn't been "Apostolic" for more than a millennium.

yep, when was the last time men "girded their loins like a man"? I guess us men haven't been men since than, huh?
My sister was married to a Samoan guy, those men wear skirts. I dare anyone to call them queenies to their face.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Principle righteousness is never done away. All scripture is given for instruction in righteousness.

Nobody said righteousness was done away. But the Law never made anyone righteous, You can't just pick and choose what parts of the Law of Moses you can disobey

The Mosaic Covenant/OT was referenced all the time in principle teaching.

Show us where in the NT this part about clothing was referenced then

distinction in clothing is no different than Paul arguing in 1 cor about order among men and women.

Show me one person that denies there should be a distinction in clothing here. You are arguing a strawman. The argument here is not distinction but whether or not women can wear pants

The Law of Moses contain both pure light and shadow. Few things are a abomination and it brings special attention to this verse.

Then simply show where this is fulfilled in the NT. Make your arguments from the NT

I am arguing about practical understanding not how the distinctive is applied.

Again nobody denies there should be a distinction.The disagreement is with someone's idea that women can't wear pants

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

so I can post anything from xyz scholar.
.

Please do