More on Skirts

[Esaias]

A very simple solution would be for fathers and husbands to simply forbid their daughters or wives to wear pants, and to wear modest dresses or skirts instead. The issue then would have nothing to do with whether or not women can wear pants. The only issue that would come up would be "should wives and daughters obey their husbands?"

And THAT has a very clear, unmistakable, New Testament answer.

Also, it would just drive the liberals, feminists, prog commies, and various other assorted nihilists absolutely crazy, so bonus points for that.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I assure you, the males were not wearing Levis in Judea.

Neither were there Eskimos in Judea. There wasn't Chinese in Samaria, and the Lamanite American Indians didn't have a hat to place their peep stones.

I have already established the trousers in Daniel 3:21. You claim they are Babylonish garments. But the money, the clothes, and spoil from these groups were verboten Joshua 7:21. You brought up that Deuteronomy 22:5 was a religious prohibition and that God sees the abomination only in crossdressing for religious practices. Which would logically mean that everyone can cross dress if the crossdressing was secular. You also brought up that Deuteronomy 22:5 was merely concerning "intent" that if the male or female's intent was homosexual then GOD sees it as detestable and abominable. Again, logically this would then mean everyone could cross dress if the crossdressing was done by heterosexuals. But, you aren't honest, because throughout this whole discussion you have been throwing things together to win an argument. You have Googled your way through this and used everything to try to refute the verse. Pilny posted the languages which were used, and you found nothing on Google search to refute my findings on the language, or Pilny's findings the the language.

What could of only been better is to have had you in a public debate concerning this issue. Where you would of had no access to internet searches. Where you would of been exposed as an intellectual coward, not an idiot, but a coward. You aren't an idiot, because idiots can be excused for their idiocy. You are dishonest, because you were playing learn as you go. anyone who would honestly go through our discussion could see your sorry evolution of discovery as you rummaged through Google. In person face to face this would of been quite different. Because you would of exhausted your supply of material within 25 minutes of the discussion. You would of been embarrassed because everyone would of been looking to see if you had anything, and as prideful as you are? You would of seethed on the inside but kept the false Christian smiling on the outside.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is about apparel, style, "attire" is the English word used. For hundreds of years it has been "pants" on "Christian" men and dresses katastole on "Christain" women.

The whole of Christendom understood this. Yet, you live in a world where reality is dictated by the ever changing culture around you. You have no defense for young people wanting gender neutral locker rooms, bathrooms, or gender neutral society. You have no defense and instead of having a strong argument you have whatever you can grasp from Google. Sorry, you lose.

[good samaritan]

Most of Christian women, if their husband told them that they were to wear only skirts or dresses they would not obey. If the issue was pushed they would probably be divorced. This reveals the Spirit working inside of them. On the flip side most men aren't going to ask that of their wives because they don't care.

I know ladies personally who say they can't serve God because they can't give up their pants. I try to tell them don't worry about pants right now just focus on living for God, but for them it is wrong so they can't just skip them.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Most of Christian women, if their husband told them that they were to wear only skirts or dresses they would not obey. If the issue was pushed they would probably be divorced. This reveals the Spirit working inside of them. On the flip side most men aren't going to ask that of their wives because they don't care.

I know ladies personally who say they can't serve God because they can't give up their pants. I try to tell them don't worry about pants right now just focus on living for God, but for them it is wrong so they can't just skip them.

My church does not preach standards from the pulpit, they are taught in discipleship classes which are offered as one of the Sunday School classes you can attend. This allows people to come as they are until they become serious about pursuing a deeper relationship with God.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Amanah

My church does not preach standards from the pulpit, they are taught in discipleship classes which are offered as one of the Sunday School classes you can attend. This allows people to come as they are until they become serious about pursuing a deeper relationship with God.

I agree with how your church does this, but for some ladies it has nothing to do with our teaching of standards. For many backslid Pentecostals this issue is black and white. Pants are wrong for a woman.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

My church does not preach standards from the pulpit, they are taught in discipleship classes which are offered as one of the Sunday School classes you can attend. This allows people to come as they are until they become serious about pursuing a deeper relationship with God.

When I was younger I was in a revival in Punta Gorda Florida which the young people and I prayed all night long before Sunday services. We fasted and prayed and when morning service would come it was amazing. The power of the Holy Ghost was powerful. People would run to the altar, crying, calling out to Jesus (not Yahshua) JESUS! They would be blowing snot bubbles with tears, repenting. Now, this might all seem normal, but what was the incredible part is that people would throw their contraband on the platform. Jewelry, make up, drugs, cigarettes, women wiping off make up, yanking off earrings, men taking off their jewelry, rings, weapons, etc. But more than that the next time you would see them. The men were clean, haircuts, decent civilian clothes, and the women looked like they just stepped out of UC Apostolicdom. It wasn't about preaching standards because the church was more liberal than Aquila ever dared to be. The church was Cruuuzeematic to the brim. They were hardline against UC of any flavor. Yet, the preacher was preaching prayer, and being totally filled with the Holy Ghost. Preached it for weeks, we prayed continually, and all night on Saturday evening till Sunday morning. The results were unforgettable and not regrettable.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

When I was younger I was in a revival in Punta Gorda Florida which the young people and I prayed all night long before Sunday services. We fasted and prayed and when morning service would come it was amazing. The power of the Holy Ghost was powerful. People would run to the altar, crying, calling out to Jesus (not Yahshua) JESUS! They would be blowing snot bubbles with tears, repenting. Now, this might all seem normal, but what was the incredible part is that people would throw their contraband on the platform. Jewelry, make up, drugs, cigarettes, women wiping off make up, yanking off earrings, men taking off their jewelry, rings, weapons, etc. But more than that the next time you would see them. The men were clean, haircuts, decent civilian clothes, and the women looked like they just stepped out of UC Apostolicdom. It wasn't about preaching standards because the church was more liberal than Aquila ever dared to be. The church was Cruuuzeematic to the brim. They were hardline against UC of any flavor. Yet, the preacher was preaching prayer, and being totally filled with the Holy Ghost. Preached it for weeks, we prayed continually, and all night on Saturday evening till Sunday morning. The results were unforgettable and not regrettable.

love this

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Neither were there Eskimos in Judea. There wasn't Chinese in Samaria, and the Lamanite American Indians didn't have a hat to place their peep stones.

I have already established the trousers in Daniel 3:21. You claim they are Babylonish garments. But the money, the clothes, and spoil from these groups were verboten Joshua 7:21. You brought up that Deuteronomy 22:5 was a religious prohibition and that God sees the abomination only in crossdressing for religious practices. Which would logically mean that everyone can cross dress if the crossdressing was secular. You also brought up that Deuteronomy 22:5 was merely concerning "intent" that if the male or female's intent was homosexual then GOD sees it as detestable and abominable. Again, logically this would then mean everyone could cross dress if the crossdressing was done by heterosexuals. But, you aren't honest, because throughout this whole discussion you have been throwing things together to win an argument. You have Googled your way through this and used everything to try to refute the verse. Pilny posted the languages which were used, and you found nothing on Google search to refute my findings on the language, or Pilny's findings the the language.

What could of only been better is to have had you in a public debate concerning this issue. Where you would of had no access to internet searches. Where you would of been exposed as an intellectual coward, not an idiot, but a coward. You aren't an idiot, because idiots can be excused for their idiocy. You are dishonest, because you were playing learn as you go. anyone who would honestly go through our discussion could see your sorry evolution of discovery as you rummaged through Google. In person face to face this would of been quite different. Because you would of exhausted your supply of material within 25 minutes of the discussion. You would of been embarrassed because everyone would of been looking to see if you had anything, and as prideful as you are? You would of seethed on the inside but kept the false Christian smiling on the outside.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is about apparel, style, "attire" is the English word used. For hundreds of years it has been "pants" on "Christian" men and dresses katastole on "Christain" women.

The whole of Christendom understood this. Yet, you live in a world where reality is dictated by the ever changing culture around you. You have no defense for young people wanting gender neutral locker rooms, bathrooms, or gender neutral society. You have no defense and instead of having a strong argument you have whatever you can grasp from Google. Sorry, you lose.

You have one Scripture with a meaning that is debated by scholars.

You have the example of the high priest being commanded to wear breeches as part of his inner garment.

You have a second example of three captives who were not even in Israel, but who were in Babylon, under assimilation. They even had Babylonian names. And I assure you, Babylonian attire.

Both of your examples are lifted out of context, separated by a thousand years, and you believe these verses are enough to prove men wore Levis in ancient Israel.

That my friend is not only shoddy evidence and lazy scholarship, it is dishonest. I challenge the reader to look up standard attire of the average man and woman in ancient Israel. They will find no evidence for pants becoming common attire in Judea until after the fall of Rome (which classified cultures wearing pants as barbarian).

As for all you insults, I forgive you. The truth is, you have an entire religious practice based on so many legalistic errors, you've been conformed into the image of those errors...and not Christ Himself. So, one should expect such things when engaged in conversation with such people. I pray that you find the peace that surpasses all understanding and the grace that leads to truth. Not just a marginal little doctrinal interpretation supported by the circular logic of legalists, but Truth. When you do, I have no doubt that you'll see the man that you are now in a far different light.

God bless and keep you and yours.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that the principle is a good one. But a legalistic approach that would condemn kilts as skirts is misguided.

Kilts are RIDICULOUS. Grass skirts are also cultural but no one was wearing them in Judea. You miss the whole point, because you are trying to cram world cultures into a book which wanted the world to conform to it. Not the other way around. My lands, the book was written to people in the Bronze Age, to the first century A.D. Their culture and modesty floors anything you have to offer. Kilts? Grow up. Scotland and being Scottish, good grief. Try being an Apostolic Christian.

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is some cultural leeway to consider. The Gospel isn't designed to turn us into ancient Israel.

That's where you are incorrect. It isn't trying to make you into the MGM idea of the 12 Commandments. But it is working off the template constructed and built by God to an ancient people. These people who had men wearing masculine clothes PANTS, and women wearing katastole DRESSES. You are losing miserably this discussion because if your ancestors wore a bone through their nose, instead of painting themselves blue, and wearing kilts. You be arguing that the Bible allows you to wear a chicken bone through your septum.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not Jewish, never will be.

They weren't admonished to be part of the Judean tribe of Judah. They were admonished to be Judeans inwardly and cast off their OLD MAN. You being Scottish and wearing a plaid rag around your waist is comical. Why? because while everyone sees it as just plaid designs it meant something to the clan. Which you haven't the foggiest idea. The kilt was more a flag, then anything. With every post you show your cluelessness on everything. Stick to politics, I guess you might fair better. Since politics are in the eye of the beholder.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm Scottish and I'm an American in 2017, this principle can be applied culturally. For example, I wouldn't wear a dress or ladies jeans, they pertain to a woman. You innately know that too, and so you'd condemn ladies jeans on a man. Surely, you wouldn't approve.

This argument could work if the Bible was some malleable material created to fit whatever culture. Whatever ideology. You do understand that there are Homosexual churches? Yet, there is no such thing as an active homosexual Christian. You lose the argument when you offer us a Churchanity instead of Biblical Christianity. You attempt to offer a pliable set of scriptures which you can wrest to your own destruction. While blindness may be your cup of tea, it only achieves the destruction of all who follow you through the broadway.
Hey do you have an accent like Scotty from Star Trek? Does that go with the kilt? NO, but bringing the kilt and eskimo seal skin pants has zero to do with a Biblical discussion on Deuteronomy 22:5. Because there were no kilt wearing dingbats, and seal skin wearing goofballs.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Hey, George Washington wore hosiery, watch it pal. Lol

Only worn by men. Just like the trousers of the day. Women only wore dresses. NO pant wearing women. Hey cultural for a guy to wear his pants around his hamstrings, but should we argue that women of the same culture do the same? Clean up Dodge, don't grab a gun and join the outlaws.

Originally Posted by Aquila

In fact, hosiery was originally a male article of clothing as it pertains to outer wear. Notice, now your position is defined by culture as you know it.

It was men's wear because it was men's wear since Daniel and Leviticus. Our position isn't defined by culture, especially when the culture is going POST CHRISTIAN. You maniac, in your attempt to bring unity through disunity, you are standing Christian ethics on its head. You change agent you.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ultimately culture is the primary lens by which we define propriety. And yes, hosiery on men might make a comeback. Weird, but true.

That's because YOU have the wrong lens, you want to win the world with the world. You can't you lose the Church with doing that. You proved that your agenda is about justifying the church using POPULAR CULTURE AS ITS PRIMARY LENS. Everything you posted from Dan to Beersheba goes down the drain. Because you have admitted that popular culture is the dictator, not the book, chapter, and verse.

Originally Posted by Aquila

No matter what turn culture makes, we can apply unchanging principle. Men's hosiery might make a comeback, but men wearing ladies hosiery will still be improper.

You are now swerving all over the place. You have tethered your Christendom to the burning meteor called popular culture. Which changes constantly by a SIN driven populace.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I assure you, styles might be similar, but both male and female styles of attire will also remain distinct.

Don't assure anyone of anything.

We know who you are, Bronze!

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have one Scripture with a meaning that is debated by scholars.

You have the example of the high priest being commanded to wear breeches as part of his inner garment.

You have a second example of three captives who were not even in Israel, but who were in Babylon, under assimilation. They even had Babylonian names. And I assure you, Babylonian attire.

Both of your examples are lifted out of context, separated by a thousand years, and you believe these verses are enough to prove men wore Levis in ancient Israel.

That my friend is not only shoddy evidence and lazy scholarship, it is dishonest. I challenge the reader to look up standard attire of the average man and woman in ancient Israel. They will find no evidence for pants becoming common attire in Judea until after the fall of Rome (which classified cultures wearing pants as barbarian).

As for all you insults, I forgive you. The truth is, you have an entire religious practice based on so many legalistic errors, you've been conformed into the image of those errors...and not Christ Himself. So, one should expect such things when engaged in conversation with such people. I pray that you find the peace that surpasses all understanding and the grace that leads to truth. Not just a marginal little doctrinal interpretation supported by the circular logic of legalists, but Truth. When you do, I have no doubt that you'll see the man that you are now in a far different light.

God bless and keep you and yours.

Your teaching of DE 22:5 is only against being a transvestite. If a lady wants to wear men's pants it is o.k. even if they are male designer jeans. If it fits better wear it.

There has been a lot of valid arguments made to substantiate the claim that pants are distinctively male attire. Our bathroom signs even make the point and we know the craziness that has been through. People in America don't know which bathroom they should use. Women wearing pants justifies transvestites, if it is alright for a woman to put a pair of men's pants then it is not wrong for a man to put on a woman's dress. In the end DE 22:5 means nothing at all.

But hey it is all about the love, right? I agree we should love man, but what about love God. If we love God we will keep His commandments.