More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I can say my experience has been the opposite.

Hey, bro, Aquila already let us know he was stabbing and slabbing is his starched long sleeve shirt.

The Lord Jesus have mercy on all of us, because it is looking really sad in American Churchanity Industrial Complex.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Either Deuteronomy 22:5 is obligatory, or it is not. If it is not, then there is no reason to oppose crossdressing of any kind.

So what do YOU believe? Regardless of whether or not pants are specifically men's apparel, do you believe Deuteronomy 22:5 is obligatory, meaning that women are not to wear that which pertains to a man, and men are not to wear a woman's garment?

Actually, the New Testament gives us enough to admonish against cross dressing:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 King James Version (KJV)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (woman like), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (homosexuals),
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The word "effeminate" means:

Effeminate
ef·fem·i·nate.
[əˈfemənət]
ADJECTIVE
(of a man) having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman; unmanly.
synonyms: womanish · effete · foppish · unmanly · feminine · camp · campy · flaming

So, a man dressing like a lady in any manner would be effeminate.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I can say my experience has been the opposite.

I'm glad. I know there are good churches out there. The church I was saved in was VERY strict. At first, the pastor left you hungering for the standards. After a while though, things changed. It became a loveless demand.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm glad. I know there are good churches out there. The church I was saved in was VERY strict. At first, the pastor left you hungering for the standards. After a while though, things changed. It became a loveless demand.

I might be all wrong on what I am about to say, and if so I'm sure someone will straighten me out .

The desire for holiness of spirit so that you can hunger and thirst for God and be used by him leads to people wanting to be separate from the world (the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life)

God leads and guides us into a closer walk with him and that includes coming out from the world and being separate from worldliness.

The problem with outward standards is that when you dictate standards that are not coming from a persons heart it breeds resentment and hypocrisy and you have defeated the purpose.

On the other hand if the church is consumed with the world there is a quenching and grieving and stifling of the Spirit.

So, along with the teaching of word must come prayer and fasting and a moving of the Holy Ghost that will give people a desire to cast off the world and serve God with all their hearts.

Sometimes you see it plainly for yourself and you follow out of obedience to the word, sometimes you follow your pastor because you trust him to be watching for your soul.

And sometimes you concede that some things like no beards or wearing red are just plain silly.

Sometimes it takes patience and bearing with each other in love.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Both brother Pliny and brother Benincasa have made the following argument:

Only males wore bifurcated garments (breeches) in the Bible.

They made the case that the Levites and the three Hebrew captives in Babylon wore bifurcated garments. With this statement I agree. The Levites and the three captive Hebrews wore bifurcated clothing. However, both Pliny and Benincasa insisted that this implied that males commonly wore trousers in Israel. It is my understanding that they didn't. These are the only two cases in which bifurcated garments are mentioned in Scripture, and for the most part, male and female Israelites, and the Jews of Christ's day, actually wore clothing that was quite similar. Neither wore bifurcated garments as part of everyday common attire.

No godly women are recorded as wearing breeches or similar apparel. Therefore, there is no Biblical basis, authorisation, or approval for women wearing breeches or similar apparel (pants in modern lingo).

Since the average Israelite (male or female) didn't wear trousers, it's a mute point. What I wish to point out, however, is that both male and female did actually wear very similar attire. Therefore, the prohibition in Deuteronomy wasn't necessarily about a requirement to wear radically different "styles" of clothing.

You have not refuted their argument.

They've yet to produce evidence that the average Israelite wore pants (which was their claim), and that the average attire was radically different between male and female.

You have presented myriads of anecdotes as well as historical testimony from cultures outside the Bible regarding various clothing styles and customs, but have presented no evidence from the Bible that women either should or could wear breeches or similar clothing with God's approval.

What I have done is establish that pants weren't a concern when Deuteronomy 22:5 was written. In addition, both male and female Israelites wore very similar clothing.

Please pay careful attention to my next statement:

It doesn't matter what my opinion or belief is concerning pants, breeches, or what constitutes men's or women's apparel. The simple and obvious fact is that you have not actually addressed the actual argument of those you have been arguing with on this thread.

Can you see that? Please try again.

Here are Benincasa's and Pliny's statements:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Priest, three Hebrews, and Revelation 19:16, military cavalry wore trousers.
Separated by many generations? Good job you are getting there. You are showing that they continued the practice of men wearing pants for many generations.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Right... That's why God told the Levites to wear them and the three Hebrew boys wore them. I guess they are neither ancient nor Israeli men.

There can be little doubt other Hebrew men wore them as well.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Aquila they wore pants in Babylon because they were wearing pants in Judea.

All of these statements are designed to misinform the reader. It is my understanding that trousers/pants etc. were not common attire among the average Israelite. In fact, both men and women dressed similarly. They wore tunics, girdles, and outer garments. Among the common people, neither the men nor the women wore pants in ancient Judea.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Amanah

. . .

Sometimes it takes patience and bearing with each other in love.

or you can endlessly bite and devour each other for sport.

Gal 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The above is called the disclaimer. If you follow this guy's postings he believes everyone who teaches against crossdressing is as warped as he claimed to once be.

Never said that. You do realize that when you say things like this, they are lies, don't you?

A back up to the first disclaimer. These are on the same line as "I have friends who are black" it's supposed to gain credibility for what they are presenting.



This is where Church is supposed to be group therapy. If you noticed Aquila equated the move of the spirit to men sharing their feelings. Their hidden sins. If you start out with no Holy Ghost in your far rightness you end up with no Holy Ghost is your far leftness. Both sides of the road have a huge ditch, and some don't drive straight down the middle. When they hit the swerve they look for those they use to fellowship to run over.



No doubt you experienced, you personally experienced it in your own behavior as a religious fiend. Bro, it had zero to do with standards. Seriously you still boil under your soft blanket of liberal left. But like I have already stated, liberals want to see the ghetto cleaned up with people rehabilitated They just don't want them moved to their neighborhood. Your credibility is below zero. Whatever you believe about Deuteronomy 22:5 is absolutely meaningless. Because the cardboard tough guy who once waltz his wife back into the house to change her socks, is more than likely still waiting underneath your hood.

Pray through my brother.

And that entire post was just a personal attack filled with insults. Keep up the good work and dress real nice. I'm so glad you represent the holiness crowd around here EB. LOL

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

EB. Why do you have so many pictures of men dressed like women? LOL

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, excuse me, but a colobium is clergy vestments from the 3rd century. Also known as coronation robes because kings and queens were part of the ecclesia. Aquila you are learning as you go, gleaning from Google. Why do I know this because I read your postings. In one breath you make statements against Catholicism, and then offer their attire in an argument. Are commentaries infallible? No. Are they extremely useful to the student? By all means, yes! But the ingredient which is most important is research the available material. Which must be the Manuscripts in their ancient languages. Comparing them with each other to gain the correct meaning. Also knowing how these words were used during the time of the writings. You my brother, are using commentaries as if they have no flip side or contrary information. What was the agenda of the writers. Or the scholars. By no means discard them, but the microscope which must be used is the Bible itself.

Yes, I encourage the reader to Google it. They will discover that colobium aren't strictly coronation robes. Colobium (Roman) and Kolobas (Greek) are tunics that were worn by commoners and officials since ancient times. However, as times and styles changed the columbium remained in use by higher classes and became a more ceremonial article of clothing known as the colobium sindonis. This is the "coronation robe" you reference.

Maybe if you would have read more than just the first couple articles in your Google search, you would have known that.

Same but different? One had a blue stripe and the other had a purple stripe on the edge of the robe? The average? Notice Aquila won't go as far to say that they NEVER wore trousers. Listen, trousers were of pagan design and used in pagan rituals as Aquila has stated multiple times. Then Meshach Shadrach, and Abednego wouldn't of touched them. They would of vehemently refused as hard as they refused the pork (offered to idols) on the king's table. Jesus in Revelation 19:16 is wearing military cavalry trousers.
Commentary is fine and wonderful, but the further you go into a commentary you may find the the "scholars" end up contradicting, or leaving some things out.

I don't remember saying that trousers were used in ancient pagan rituals. I'd like for you to find the quote. When it comes to trousers and Babylon, trousers were common attire, especially among officials and servants of the royal court. They continued to be common attire in Persia too, and please note, both males and females wore trousers in Persia.

Trousers were not common attire in Judea, unless you were a Levite.

Deuteronomy means mild differences? Hmm, blind leading blind both fall into big bottomless hole? No thanks.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is definitely talking about big differences because the writer is stressing MASCULINITY by using GEBER. STRONG MAN. Size 30 neck!!!!

You missed the point, again.

Israelite males and females didn't dress that differently as it related to their common attire. So... clearly Deuteronomy isn't necessarily talking about common attire. This is one reason why scholars have tried to figure out if the text is talking about ritual garb of the Canaanites or the garments of a soldier.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Trousers were not common attire in Judea, unless you were a Levite.



You missed the point, again.

Israelite males and females didn't dress that differently as it related to their common attire. So... clearly Deuteronomy isn't necessarily talking about common attire. This is one reason why scholars have tried to figure out if the text is talking about ritual garb of the Canaanites or the garments of a soldier.

Trousers were not common attire to the Levite unless he was rendering service in the tabernacle! The rest of the time he wore regular garments as did everyday people.