Bible Study

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Comfort, security and convenience

Security?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pliny

I did in fact answer your question and posted the scripture.
Go back and look if you like.

Barnes in fact states that the garments mentioned in Exodus correspond to "pantaloons"


Matthew 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Barnes
Coat - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior, here called the “coat,” or the tunic, was made commonly of linen, and encircled the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck. and had long or short sleeves. Over this was commonly worn an upper garment, here called “cloak,” or mantle.

Also, you did in fat jump to conclusions and brought me into your conclusions which is twisting and dancing around the subject.

Good Day

He seems to be saying they were undergarments worn by priests not pants worn by all jews

[BalancedLife]

Originally Posted by Luke

How do you know those things are sexual immorality? How do you know those things are sinful?

HINT HINT:
Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Here is the KJV of Gal 5:19

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Sorry but you still did not answered my question because your answer is based on the law which you deny has any effect on us today.

I'm sorry but I am not following what you are asking me here. I know that sin was explained and defined by the law, Paul said it is our school master to teach us.

Look up the Greek word for fornication in Galatians 5:19. It is (4202) porneia which means illicit sexual intercourse (adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism and intercourse with animals).

What question of yours did I not answer? I have asked you several with no response. They are:

1) Ok if we are to follow the moral law then would you say killing someone (directly or indirectly) is considered a moral law? If so we must follow and teach Deut. 22:8 for it says:

“When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it."

2) And how is this scripture (Deut. 22:5) related to homosexuality? When God first clothed Adam and Eve he made them the same thing. There was no difference in what Adam wore and what Eve wore. So you are saying from the beginning since they wore the same unisex attire that homosexuality was present?

3) As asked previously, if we are going to say it is forbidden for women to wear a man's garment, then they cannot wear t-shirts, baseball caps, work boots, etc. For all of these were made specifically for a man but later they made a woman's version (of the which they did for pants).



God bless

[BalancedLife]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He seems to be saying they were undergarments worn by priests not pants worn by all jews

That's what I've said the entire time but some people want to add to the original text and find commentaries or other supporting documents to prove their point.

I think the writer understood through time these "undergarments" evolved into what we know as pants today.


God bless

[BalancedLife]

I wonder if the Apostle's took the time to teach all the Gentiles in the NT to follow the law? I wonder if they took the time to go through the 10 commandments, 613 laws and all the oral (rabbinical) laws that were handed down from generation to generation? (excluding the ceremonial and civil laws)

Why is none of this shown in the epistles? Why was Paul so adamant against the circumcision of the flesh (which was one of the greatest laws or commandments to the Jews)? The reason is they understood that the law was fulfilled in Christ and we were freed from the penalty of the law. It was only there to babysit us until Christ came.

The law brought death, but Christ brings life. The law only pushed sins up one year, the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all iniquity. The law was written on tablets of stone but Christ wrote the new law on the tablets of our heart by his Spirit.

I love the OT, it is where we glean so much from and helps us understand Christ. For Jesus himself said he opened up the scriptures to the 2 men on the road to Emmaus beginning at Moses telling all things concerning him. The law was for the Jews but now in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.


God bless

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BalancedLife

That's what I've said the entire time but some people want to add to the original text and find commentaries or other supporting documents to prove their point.

I think the writer understood through time these "undergarments" evolved into what we know as pants today.


God bless

I don't think they evolved. Pants were worn in some cultures but not globally. It's not that undergarments evolved. Cultures evolved

[BalancedLife]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't think they evolved. Pants were worn in some cultures but not globally. It's not that undergarments evolved. Cultures evolved

You are probably right. Cultures change but God's word doesn't.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by BalancedLife

I'm sorry but I am not following what you are asking me here. I know that sin was explained and defined by the law, Paul said it is our school master to teach us.

Look up the Greek word for fornication in Galatians 5:19. It is (4202) porneia which means illicit sexual intercourse (adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism and intercourse with animals).

What question of yours did I not answer? I have asked you several with no response. They are:

1) Ok if we are to follow the moral law then would you say killing someone (directly or indirectly) is considered a moral law? If so we must follow and teach Deut. 22:8 for it says:

“When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it."

2) And how is this scripture (Deut. 22:5) related to homosexuality? When God first clothed Adam and Eve he made them the same thing. There was no difference in what Adam wore and what Eve wore. So you are saying from the beginning since they wore the same unisex attire that homosexuality was present?

3) As asked previously, if we are going to say it is forbidden for women to wear a man's garment, then they cannot wear t-shirts, baseball caps, work boots, etc. For all of these were made specifically for a man but later they made a woman's version (of the which they did for pants).



God bless

My point is simply that inorder for you to say that those things are immoral you have to go back to the law but you have already said that the law does not apply to us to day! Therefore you are being inconsistent.

As to your first question about Deut 22:8 that would fall under civil law and would be similar to our building codes of today.

As I have already mentioned the law falls into there categories
1. Ceremonial this deals with the sacrifices and the washings and the things that made you clean or unclean in a detrimental sense such as dietary laws.
2. Civil laws this dealt with laws for the country of Israel such as inheritance laws building laws divorce laws.
In both the ceremonial and civil law people were told if they did a certain thing then they were an abomination to themselves or the nation but the moral law dealt with things that were an abomination to God.
3. Moral law this dealt with sin and things that were simply wrong and against what God liked. Here is where the ten commandments would have fallen.

As to your second question a shirt has always been worn by both sexes and has always be a neutral garment as has a hat (this can be seen in 1 Corinthians when Paul mentions both men and women having those head covered but stated the man shouldn't while praying or prophecying) pants on the other hand have been traditionally held as a man's garment for centuries and this has only been questioned since the rise of feminist movement.

Thirdly this passage deals with homosexuality in that it deals with crisscrossing and men acting like women and men acting like men.

[BalancedLife]

Originally Posted by Luke

My point is simply that inorder for you to say that those things are immoral you have to go back to the law but you have already said that the law does not apply to us to day! Therefore you are being inconsistent.

As to your first question about Deut 22:8 that would fall under civil law and would be similar to our building codes of today.

As I have already mentioned the law falls into there categories
1. Ceremonial this deals with the sacrifices and the washings and the things that made you clean or unclean in a detrimental sense such as dietary laws.
2. Civil laws this dealt with laws for the country of Israel such as inheritance laws building laws divorce laws.
In both the ceremonial and civil law people were told if they did a certain thing then they were an abomination to themselves or the nation but the moral law dealt with things that were an abomination to God.
3. Moral law this dealt with sin and things that were simply wrong and against what God liked. Here is where the ten commandments would have fallen.

As to your second question a shirt has always been worn by both sexes and has always be a neutral garment as has a hat (this can be seen in 1 Corinthians when Paul mentions both men and women having those head covered but stated the man shouldn't while praying or prophecying) pants on the other hand have been traditionally held as a man's garment for centuries and this has only been questioned since the rise of feminist movement.

Thirdly this passage deals with homosexuality in that it deals with crisscrossing and men acting like women and men acting like men.

I really don't know what to say to you here, there is no rhyme or reason to your statement about the law. Of course it was the law that told us what is right or wrong. But we are not debtors to the law for we live it thru Christ. As Paul said, if you do one part of the law you are bound to folkow the entire law and therefore making the cross of Christ of none effect.

If you think involuntary manslaughter is just a civil law, then I have nothing else to say to you. That's what the law of Deut. 22:8 was for, to prevent blood on your house.


God bless

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Luke

My point is simply that inorder for you to say that those things are immoral you have to go back to the law but you have already said that the law does not apply to us to day! Therefore you are being inconsistent.
.

No you don't HAVE to go back to the Law (Old Testament), because these laws are repeated in the New Testament. The Law was a part of the Old Covenant and we have a New Covenant