The Bishop missed one point.

[Kutless]

the "abomination" factor.

A clear distinction. And according to the "Search of holiness" Christians don't have to adhere to ceremonial law. This was a moral law signified by the word abomination.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Kutless

the "abomination" factor.

A clear distinction. And according to the "Search of holiness" Christians don't have to adhere to ceremonial law. This was a moral law signified by the word abomination.

and the abomination refered to in that verse was the idol worship that was being done by the pagan nieghbors of the Israelites.

Before the men (hebrew "geber" = warriors) would go into battle they would have their women put on the "apparel' or armaments of war, the soldiers would atire themselves in the cast off garments of the women.

Then they would, dressed in that fassion, appease their gods to bless them in battle.

The words of Dt 22:5 was a warnig to Israel not to do as their pagan nieghbors did.

The Abomination was NEVER the clothing they wore but the idolol worship that took place when this practice took place.


So "search for holiness" is wrongon this account. Call the book what it is, "Search for man made standards"

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

and the abomination refered to in that verse was the idol worship that was being done by the pagan nieghbors of the Israelites.

Before the men (hebrew "geber" = warriors) would go into battle they would have their women put on the "apparel' or armaments of war, the soldiers would atire themselves in the cast off garments of the women.

Then they would, dressed in that fassion, appease their gods to bless them in battle.

The words of Dt 22:5 was a warnig to Israel not to do as their pagan nieghbors did.

The Abomination was NEVER the clothing they wore but the idolol worship that took place when this practice took place.


So "search for holiness" is wrongon this account. Call the book what it is, "Search for man made standards"

Thanks, not only that, the word "abomination" is very complicated and tricky. Doesn't mean the unpardonable sin...also, what was an "abomination" to God under the law would have been judged against the Mosaic law. Just as the eating of unclean meat, touching dead things, eating with unwashen hands, etc. Once the law was fulfilled in Christ, we are now set at liberty against the judgment of the law. So, this verse even if it was an "abomination" at that time and meant what some think it did (men's pants) does not apply - post Mosaic law, hence Calvary. This is one reason Peter had such difficulty with the Gentiles. God had to show him a vision and tell him to "slay and eat".

It's about time some people get a hold of Peter's vision. The law is over. Jesus fulfilled it in His sinless flesh. God is doing a new work, what was illegal under the law, is now legal in Christ. Of course, with the exception of the Eternal Moral Law which preceded Moses.

BTW, if those who preach this really believed it, women shouldn't wear the following; PJ's with a divided thigh, husbands socks, baseball caps, your husbands coat when your cold and he's not...Hello???

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by staysharp

Thanks, not only that, the word "abomination" is very complicated and tricky. Doesn't mean the unpardonable sin...also, what was an "abomination" to God under the law would have been judged against the Mosaic law. Just as the eating of unclean meat, touching dead things, eating with unwashen hands, etc. Once the law was fulfilled in Christ, we are now set at liberty against the judgment of the law. So, this verse even if it was an "abomination" at that time and meant what some think it did (men's pants) does not apply - post Mosaic law, hence Calvary. This is one reason Peter had such difficulty with the Gentiles. God had to show him a vision and tell him to "slay and eat".

It's about time some people get a hold of Peter's vision. The law is over. Jesus fulfilled it in His sinless flesh. God is doing a new work, what was illegal under the law, is now legal in Christ. Of course, with the exception of the Eternal Moral Law which preceded Moses.

BTW, if those who preach this really believed it, women shouldn't wear the following; PJ's with a divided thigh, husbands socks, baseball caps, your husbands coat when your cold and he's not...Hello???

No body really believes it !

I remember seeing the girls from an area upc on the ice skating rinks and ski slopes. Wearing what ever under their skirts, from long johns to their dads blue jeans. Looked pretty wierd.

My thoughts were this, if they REALLY believe that split legged garments were an an abomination.....how would wearing skirts over the top of pants UNABOMINATE what you just peached last sunday night was an abomination.

[mfblume]

This was a moral law signified by the word abomination.

ABOMINATION does not necessarily mean moral law.

Leviticus 11:10 KJV And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

[jaxfam6]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

No body really believes it !

I remember seeing the girls from an area upc on the ice skating rinks and ski slopes. Wearing what ever under their skirts, from long johns to their dads blue jeans. Looked pretty wierd.
My thoughts were this, if they REALLY believe that split legged garments were an an abomination.....how would wearing skirts over the top of pants UNABOMINATE what you just peached last sunday night was an abomination.

My sister, not part of the UPC but another even more strict group, got in trouble with the pastor and his wife for going skydiving and not wearing a skirt.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by jaxfam6

My sister, not part of the UPC but another even more strict group, got in trouble with the pastor and his wife for going skydiving and not wearing a skirt.

Well, a skirt might work like a parachute.

[Sister Alvear]

Sam, can you paste here what you copied fron the Targum? I thought that was very interesting.

[jaxfam6]

Originally Posted by Sam

Well, a skirt might work like a parachute.

never know maybe next she will try it

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Sam, can you paste here what you copied fron the Targum? I thought that was very interesting.

Our Old Testament except for a few verses was written in Hebrew. After the Jews were taken to Babylon and then regathered after 70 years, many had picked up the language of Bablylon and Hebrew was becoming unfamiliar. In Nehemiah chapter 8 it is recorded that the people came together to hear the Bible read. Ezra the priest stood on a high platform and read from the Scriptures. Ezra is called a cohen or priest and a Torah teacher in Neh. 8:9. Earlier verses say that Ezra opened the scroll and read. As he read the Scriptures were explained and translated so the people could understand. This was probably in the fall or October of 445 B.C. The Hebrew scriptures were explained or paraphrased in the Aramaic language which they had brought from Bablylon.

Later in the synagogues where Jews gathered, when the Scriptures were read in Hebrew they would be explained or paraphrased verse by verse in a commonly understood language. These oral explanations were called Targums or Targamim which was plural for targum or Aramaic. At first these targums were not supposed to be written down but later were. There are two targums from around the first century that are still around. One is called the Jonathan Targum and one is called the Onkelos Targum.

A parallel to this would be our modern paraphases which are meant to simplify the older unfamiliar language that was used in England in the seventeenth century and is found in our King James Bible.

Just for something interesting, here is Deuteronomy 22:5 from the Johathan Targum
"Neither fringed robes nor tephillin which are the ornaments of a man shall be upon a woman; neither shall a man shave himself so as to appear like a woman; for every one who doeth so is an abomination before the Lord thy God."

From what I understand, that would be the way a first century Jew or Christian would hear that verse read in his language at the synagog. I don't know just how that would go over in a UPC church today which discourages facial hair on men and pants on women.