Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Cindy

Preach!!

Sis,
Not meaning to preachify.
It is amazing how many folks that CLAIM to be apostolic leave Jesus and our NEW COVENANT completely out of the picture. They capriciously choose which verses are "literal" and which are "principle". The old testament is -as we well know- only a type and shadow of that "better" thing to come, namely a new covenant, which obliterated the old one. The old contained "structure", rules, regulations, etc, much like many our our apostolic peers still live by. They can use those rules if they are convinced it will help them live for God, but they project those convictions on others that may not need the same convictions in order to live for the Lord, and in doing so, create burdens that the Lord Jesus never made a requirement to bear....

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Sabby

Sis,
Not meaning to preachify.
It is amazing how many folks that CLAIM to be apostolic leave Jesus and our NEW COVENANT completely out of the picture. They capriciously choose which verses are "literal" and which are "principle". The old testament is -as we well know- only a type and shadow of that "better" thing to come, namely a new covenant, which obliterated the old one. The old contained "structure", rules, regulations, etc, much like many our our apostolic peers still live by. They can use those rules if they are convinced it will help them live for God, but they project those convictions on others that may not need the same convictions in order to live for the Lord, and in doing so, create burdens that the Lord Jesus never made a requirement to bear....

Just laying it out there in good ole plain English!

[Sabby]

[QUOTE=LUKE2447;1094687]Never said I am under it's administration. Which you seem unable to grasp by your comments.

[QUOTE]You have forgotten the weightier matters of the law, to have mercy, and NOT sacrifice.

LOL ok whatever.

"LOL ok whatever". Your comments reveal your attitude, my friend.

left field must be nice.

Since when is making Jesus Christ the centerpiece of our walk with God (to include your holiness standards implication) from left field?


yeah... knowing Christ and knowing his commandments which are the same foundational natural laws perfected.... and?

same foundational natural laws perfected?

OW, He is God and we are not....

Luke, he is the fulfillment of every law of the universe, those seen (natural) and unseen (spiritual).

Don't mistake what I'm saying. I am not saying that a "secondary result" of knowing him will show us the old testament "principle" of holiness for women to not


eehh no support for it limtied to that.

IOW, you can't capriciously choose which holiness standards are principle and which are literal. Your post is really an apologetic for an underlying belief in a clothing-based status with God....
I can tell by your snide comment above (whatever) that you are contemptous of my position. That is ok with me. You can't hurt me. But you can hurt others that you try to coerce into believing your so-called standard of Holiness. You have cherry-picked a verse to apply it literally to the present day. Jesus Christ, in case you have forgotten, said, Before Abraham was, I am. Before your straw man argument of a verse was ever written.


yeah like those lawtians just pulled the law out of a sand hole. God had nothing to do with it hmmm I thought the writer was the same author of both covnants.

You are getting on to something here, LUKE. Indeed, the writer of the ceremonial law is the same one that robed Himself in flesh. Jesus is not opposed to our understanding the old testament. He told the scribes that they "speak of me". Hello. The law was and is a schoolmaster, to lead the Jews to Christ. It is absolutely holy. But you are wrapped up in the literal interpretation of the ceremonial law; which is where you are off track. If you were talking about the Decalogue then I would agree with you 1,000 per cent, but even IF you were talking about only the 10 Commandments, Jesus still FULFILLED them.
The Old Covenant, of which the ceremonial law is a part, was a "shadow" of that which is to come. You can't see clearly through a shadow. You can't make the argument based upon shadow interpretation.
I've preached Jesus out of the Old Testament for Many years. I have been slammed for being an "old testament" preacher. That's ok. I can take it. It's the only scripture the apostles ever used. And when they used it, it was to preach Christ and Him crucified, not a single verse in the ceremonial law of Moses. Puleeze!!!

The position you are taking on the verse in Deuteronomy is not based on principle, but one that is literal and is capricious, when Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. In order for you to understand what he meant yesterday, you need to look at what he is talking about today. We aren't living in a shadow now, but in the brightness of truth, embodied in Jesus Christ.
We have clear New Testament direction to be modest in apparel. This is not a shadow. We have clear New Testament direction to be temperate in all things. Not a shadow, but the actual image.
We have been commanded a new commandment, to love God with everything we've got and love one another; notice it's not a set of clothing standards or rules or regulations....in other words, requrements. No matter how you describe it, to you it is still about trying to justify God based upon your personal works...
I wish you could see the weakness of your position!

I am simply going to be nice and look at your comments as typical... Law mentioned by someone = a whole bunch of stuff that was never said as most people live in word bias when anything is brought up. You basically shot a stuff out and then concluded whatever you wanted. Your topical arguments have nothing to do with principle teaching on law as a structure or the reality of law toward sin. We are still under law just a different administration of which both has the same base foundational principles. Want to talk about OTHER stuff don't do it with me.

LUKE,
You are completely correct in that I am using a topical argument. My biblical theology is wrapped around the topic of Jesus Christ. Yours does not, but rather uses a hybrid definition of truth and interpolation of selected verses to support a very weak position on "standards". Your standard is Jesus, and you will have a much better night's sleep once you discover it.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

anyone agree?

It depends. If I'm wearing jeans with a pair of heels and a ruffly shirt, I'm going to feel and act more feminine than if I'm wearing a jean skirt with a t-shirt.

So, no, I don't think it's the pants alone. I think it's the whole outfit.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Perhaps you did not read what I said carefully enough

Second nobody is saying women everywhere have worn them for a long time, some time or at some point in antiquity.

I purposely made that word in RED color so you would not miss it this time


First of all that it started exclusively with men, when I quoted a source saying both men and women wore them where they seemed to have originated, is unsubstantiated

Second, that if started with men is irrelevant. Pants started with pagans...are you going to say only pagans can wear them?

"Men girding their loins" was not pants. Pants were never at any time legislated in scriptures anywhere, ever. Pants were a practical application for men just as short skirts on roman centurions were

It doesn't matter if pagans started wearing pants or not. I wasn't making an issue of that. The point was how interesting it was that clothing seems to have evolved from robes to trousers. And I never said that "men girding their loins" was pants. It seems to have been a "concept" that evolved into pants in the way of efficiency. Someone's light bulb went off in their head. Much like Levi Strauss starting making the blue jean, who was Jewish, BTW. And I never said that pants were legislated in the scriptures anywhere. I don't know where you got that or why you even said that I did.

Recently universal but as it has been proven in antiquities while men began to wear pants, because they did not always wear them, so did women in some areas

I believe that was the consensus arrived at rather than what you wrote in your first few paragraphs, which I didn't see the need to address again.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I would say it's no longer universally known as men's garments with the exception of rural backwards people where men treat women like servants more than wives.

Okay. LOL! I don't agree, of course.

I would though argue dresses are universally associated with women. Women are still depicted as the "weaker" sex..they are to have children and only get jobs where the work with children or the home. It's mostly western culture that has said women can achieve higher status and better standards.

Yes, dresses are universally associated with women, that is why the pants are universally associated with men. See how that works? LOL!

Men needed pants to fight wars and right horses, to work hard without worrying about getting their skirt caught in a machine. Eventually it became less practical and more fashion/custom. Men don't need a suit to go to work but in some areas it has become custom.

Well now that women have entered the same work areas they also dress "suited". It can be a smart skirt ensamble or it can be a pant suit

Of course, I think we already said all of this.

BTW the kilt was the Scottish version of pants just as the Roman's short skirts were too.They wore they because they could move more freely in while women still wore longer and more restricting dresses

True, but the men also utilized the "trews", which were a form of trouser. The were trimmed on the inside to protect the legs when horseback riding. They wore them with the kilt.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It doesn't matter if pagans started wearing pants or not. I wasn't making an issue of that.

You must have missed the point again about association. I was making a point. It does not matter if men wore them first anymore than pagans did

The point was how interesting it was that clothing seems to have evolved from robes to trousers.

that was YOUR point. The above was MY point

And I never said that "men girding their loins" was pants.

I didn't say you did

It seems to have been a "concept" that evolved into pants in the way of efficiency.

That was another one of MY points

Someone's light bulb went off in their head. Much like Levi Strauss starting making the blue jean, who was Jewish, BTW. And I never said that pants were legislated in the scriptures anywhere. I don't know where you got that or why you even said that I did.

I never said you said they were legislated. I got that from the folks that are arguing pants pertain to a man.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The ancient Celts wore "pants." They were European. They were also descendants from the tribes which migrated from the Caucasus region in very early antiquity. These people were all related to the "Iranians" (Aryans) and spoke related languages - the archaic Indo-European tongue. Since Northern and Central Europe was the domain of the Ice and inhabited very sparsely, if at all at one time, everything "European" would be a relative innovation compared to customs of the more temperate climes.

You are responding to a post of mine that has more involved than this simple question and statement.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On;
What is your point? I'm simply saying it didn't start in European society.

My statement was referring to an earlier conversation with Blume. He was saying that I needed to check out how the change from Robes to pants occurred and referenced the men in France with Knickers, high heels, frilly shirts. I was saying that that wasn't where pants originated, which your beginning post bears out. I was speaking of that particular time in the history of Europe.

I suppose, someone could make the point that "pants on men" was a pagan device: it surely was. But that was more a matter of climate (the Caucuses and the Zargos Mountains of Iran) and culture than religion. The "People of the Book" were all "robe and skirt wearers" - both men and women; but the Lord, for whatever reasons, simply didn't make a big deal out of that.

Their culture was generally set in a mode of gender distinction. Unfortunately, this was easily exploited to keep women "in their place." It is the appearance of women in "pants" and participating in "men's work" that has unsettled some people. One does have to ask if these men aren't insecure and in need of some exhortation instead of allowing their misogynist complaints to go unchallenged.

Women did find ways to make their clothing a distinction. And as to the "Men's work" - my husband was very happy for me to stop working. He said that I am less aggressive that way. LOL! Might be something to that. We've evolved into television shows depicting men as weak. Did that begin with women in a man's work environment? I heard Dr. Dobson, years ago, say that men would be paid a higher wage if women were not competing with them. What do you think about that statement?

... just some rambling thoughts. I appreciate you Pressy, and enjoy talking with you.

Always enjoy it, even if you think you are rambling! Thanks for the compliment, back at you, Pel!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You must have missed the point again about association. I was making a point. It does not matter if men wore them first anymore than pagans did


that was YOUR point. The above was MY point


I didn't say you did


That was another one of MY points


I never said you said they were legislated. I got that from the folks that are arguing pants pertain to a man.

Okay, now that I'm thoroughly confused, I'm going to bed.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Okay, now that I'm thoroughly confused, I'm going to bed.

Ya, we're about the watch Monty Pythons The Life Of Brian. Here is a picture of the Python cast (all men) playing women trying to look like men -since no women were allowed at a public stoning.