More on Skirts

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Iggy Pop in drag? I always knew he was gross, but... wow, that's GROSS.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

At 70 he is as messed up as ever.

That's going to give me nightmares. Thanks a lot, EB!

[FlamingZword]

OK I hereby decree that all true Apostolic holiness women dress with a burka and with dark sunglasses to make sure no one can even see their eyes.
Wearing the habit a nun is also acceptable but they must have the sunglasses too.

You better all abide by my decree or else you will not pass go and collect those 200 pesos.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

OK I hereby decree that all true Apostolic holiness women dress with a burka and with dark sunglasses to make sure no one can even see their eyes.
Wearing the habit a nun is also acceptable but they must have the sunglasses too.

You better all abide by my decree or else you will not pass go and collect those 200 pesos.

That about sums up the ridiculousness of the situation because no matter what you do someone is going to ........ you to hell.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Sadly it looks like Lies are news, and Truth is obsolete. In a world where that is happening we then mildly joke as the place falls down around our ears. All it takes is propaganda pushed on you over a couple of decades. Not about Burkas and sunglasses, it is about crossdressing. Deuteronomy 22:5 is about crossdressing. Which while everyone was trying to prove that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and that Matthew 28:19 was inserted by a Catholic priest. Little Billy was feeling girlish one morning? So, his mommy dressed him up like his sister Kathy. Pretty extreme? No, because Billy left the house looking like a mini lumber jack, because what you didn't expect is that Billy's sister is what you all loved to call a "Tom Boy." So, girlish to Billy is looking rugged and manly. Because the poor little dude wasn't taught any better by his Apostolic minister. No, this is about a female wearing a garbage bag over her body, not by a long shot. It is about young females and males going beyond transgenderism, all the way to postgenderism.

The mainstream churchisms were adopted by some Apostolics back in the 80s, they started to go online and mock their attire of separation. They ended up where they are today. Policing anyone who holds the "old line" by saying that Jesus didn't state "women wear dresses and men wear suits" in the Hebrew New Testament. therefore they Humpty Dumpty right off the wall of common sense. Yet, the King's horses and the King's men don't even bother trying to put them together anymore. Because Humpty likes it.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Sadly it looks like Lies are news, and Truth is obsolete. In a world where that is happening we then mildly joke as the place falls down around our ears. All it takes is propaganda pushed on you over a couple of decades. Not about Burkas and sunglasses, it is about crossdressing. Deuteronomy 22:5 is about crossdressing. Which while everyone was trying to prove that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and that Matthew 28:19 was inserted by a Catholic priest. Little Billy was feeling girlish one morning? So, his mommy dressed him up like his sister Kathy. Pretty extreme? No, because Billy left the house looking like a mini lumber jack, because what you didn't expect is that Billy's sister is what you all loved to call a "Tom Boy." So, girlish to Billy is looking rugged and manly. Because the poor little dude wasn't taught any better by his Apostolic minister. No, this is about a female wearing a garbage bag over her body, not by a long shot. It is about young females and males going beyond transgenderism, all the way to postgenderism.

The mainstream churchisms were adopted by some Apostolics back in the 80s, they started to go online and mock their attire of separation. They ended up where they are today. Policing anyone who holds the "old line" by saying that Jesus didn't state "women wear dresses and men wear suits" in the Hebrew New Testament. therefore they Humpty Dumpty right off the wall of common sense. Yet, the King's horses and the King's men don't even bother trying to put them together anymore. Because Humpty likes it.

After following this thread for a while now, I must say the bolded part of this statement is the truth. Deut. 22:5, is about cross dressing. But it is not about the cut or design of the clothes as much as the intended purpose. No one can deny that a Scottish kilt was made for a man, any more than a woman's polyester opposite side zippered pants were made for a women.

I do not believe Deut. 22:5 has anything to do with pants on women. That is mans interpretation. Neither is separation from the world mean standing out like a sore thumb from the rest of the world. If it was where was this separation of clothing in the bible days?

On the other hand, I agree that those that seem to think they have liberty to wear anything they want are also wrong. Especially in trying to get those that believe women should wear only dresses to wear pants.

Oh and on a final note, I must believe that if a passage of scripture has room for doubt in any ones mind as to what it means then we should not be trying to force one meaning over other as bible doctrine.

[Pliny]

Can anyone provide biblical evidence of godly women wearing a bifurcated garment?

Thank you.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Can anyone provide biblical evidence of godly women wearing a bifurcated garment?

Thank you.

Can anyone provide biblical evidence of godly women NOT wearing a bifurcated garment?

Thank you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Can anyone provide biblical evidence of godly women NOT wearing a bifurcated garment?

Thank you.

Leviticus 6:10, and Exodus 28:42 were trousers that went from the thighs down to the knees. The outer garments were a long coat which reached the feet. Daniel 3:21 speaks of Daniel's cohorts wearing pants. Women didn't wear pants. In ancient history it was cavalrymen wore trousers which reached the calves. Deuteronomy also uses words in the Greek and Hebrew which describes military apparel. Yet, bifurcated garments would of been considered masculine. If we are to refer to the Bible. Also where in Christian history did women start wearing pants? Joan of Arc wasn't burned at the stake for hearing voices. But because she was dressed like a man. Just asking when did the crossdressing start in Christian history?

Thank you

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

After following this thread for a while now, I must say the bolded part of this statement is the truth. Deut. 22:5, is about cross dressing. But it is not about the cut or design of the clothes as much as the intended purpose. No one can deny that a Scottish kilt was made for a man, any more than a woman's polyester opposite side zippered pants were made for a women.

I do not believe Deut. 22:5 has anything to do with pants on women. That is mans interpretation. Neither is separation from the world mean standing out like a sore thumb from the rest of the world. If it was where was this separation of clothing in the bible days?

On the other hand, I agree that those that seem to think they have liberty to wear anything they want are also wrong. Especially in trying to get those that believe women should wear only dresses to wear pants.

Oh and on a final note, I must believe that if a passage of scripture has room for doubt in any ones mind as to what it means then we should not be trying to force one meaning over other as bible doctrine.

Man's interpretation?

So, give us some history where did all this pants and dresses come about.

Also a kilt isn't what you see on Mc Duck, it was a rag wrapped around the dyed blue and green naked bodies of Highland clan members. If you would like to hunt around in heathen cultures looking for justifications for crossdressing. You have a long list to bring up examples, which wouldn't help prove an argument.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Can anyone provide biblical evidence of godly women NOT wearing a bifurcated garment?

Thank you.

I'll take that as a NO from you. See below for the answer to your question.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Leviticus 6:10, and Exodus 28:42 were trousers that went from the thighs down to the knees. The outer garments were a long coat which reached the feet. Daniel 3:21 speaks of Daniel's cohorts wearing pants. Women didn't wear pants. In ancient history it was cavalrymen wore trousers which reached the calves. Deuteronomy also uses words in the Greek and Hebrew which describes military apparel. Yet, bifurcated garments would of been considered masculine. If we are to refer to the Bible. Also where in Christian history did women start wearing pants? Joan of Arc wasn't burned at the stake for hearing voices. But because she was dressed like a man. Just asking when did the crossdressing start in Christian history?

Thank you

As mentioned by Bro. Benincasa, there is Biblical evidence for godly men to wear a bifurcated garment and ZERO evidence to suggest godly women wore them.