More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

I doubt cons are concerned about this. Doesn't matter. Women better wear a dress/skirt or they'll be condemned and cast into hell.

Thank you for pretending to know what I think. You must have some of that secret knowledge that Aquila and God only know...

You owe conservatives an apology. Don't worry. I will not hold my breath waiting for it.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Okay. For you, the Word of God is a minor issue. That is your problem not mine. I have never ate camel so you have no idea what you are talking about.

Deu. 22:5 is about what people wear. I guess you do not believe pants are worn. Again, your problem not mine. You also make the claim that I "spoke with Moses" about an article of clothing unknown at that time. Really? You are wrong on all points. Firstly, thank you for thinking I am smart enough to use a worm hole or whatever to find an anomaly in the time space continuum. Then, you argue that ancient Israeli culture did not wear pants. This completely ignores and tramples upon the the truth. It is the Bible that demonstrates that ancient Israeli's wore pants; hence, the three Israeli young men were, in fact, wearing pants. Pants may or may not have been the popular fashion. That is not the question. The question is what is "worn". Pants are in fact worn. Also, they were in fact worn by ancient godly Israeli men. There is not even a single shred of evidence that a godly woman ever wore them.

You said "There is no scripture where all Israeli men wore pants." This is a ridiculous statement. Holiness is not a popularity contest as implied by your statement. What matters is whether or not godly men or women wore them. The FACT remains that godly men wore them and godly women did not. This has been established previously.

Daniel 3:21 and 3:27 both demonstrate that the three godly Israeli young men were wearing pants. Now, if you can demonstrate where a godly women wore pants PLEASE provide the information.

Pliny, how does your church deal with a female new convert who doesn't confirm immediately to your interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5?

How long do you consider get saved while wearing pants?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Thank you for pretending to know what I think. You must have some of that secret knowledge that Aquila and God only know...

You owe conservatives an apology. Don't worry. I will not hold my breath waiting for it.

Why do I owe cons an apology? It's well documented over these 111 pages and 1100 posts that you and other cons believe it's a sin for women to wear pants. I'm simply stating the obvious. That you don't like it isn't my problem.

Are you saying there are exclusions to your beliefs? If so, what exclusions are there?

Are the women of Jamaica free to wear pants due to the threat of rape or sexual assault?

Are the women of India free to wear pants because it's their culture?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't know the details, but maybe that was a sensible admonition. However, if one believes that the Law of Moses still applies, and believes that Deuteronomy 22:5 is about pants, they are under Law, there can be no compromise or flexibility. It would be an abomination. In such a circumstance, they'd have to leave their women more vulnerable, and just pray that God protect them.

According to this post Jeremiah was a heretic.

(Jer 31:31 ESV) "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
(Jer 31:32 ESV) not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
(Jer 31:33 ESV) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Of course, since this is in the Bible and a prophecy concerning the New Covenant, then based on this post the poster must believe that the Holy Ghost demands that people leave women vulnerable to rape. This is disgusting and a terrible accusation that demands an apology. Of course that will never come.

Along this line of thought, apparently Jesus did not know what He was talking about either. He said He did not come to abolish the Law as some pretend He did.

(Mat 5:17 ESV) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

You can continue to castigate, impugn and otherwise demean me for taking a Biblical stand. That is your prerogative. I will put my trust in the Holy Ghost and the Bible that was created by the Holy Ghost. You are welcome to slap each other on the back and congratulate yourselves for ignoring God's word. That is your prerogative. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

I want to be holy as He is holy.
(1Pe 1:14 ESV) As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance,
(1Pe 1:15 ESV) but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,
(1Pe 1:16 ESV) since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy."

Poor Peter quoting an OT verse to make a point. Too bad some of y'all were not there to straighten him out!

I want to hunt for God's holiness so I can attempt to be as holy as He is.
(Heb 12:14 ESV) Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Apparently the writer of Hebrews was a "legalist". He believed that a person should should strive for peace and holiness. By striving, it means to actively hunt for and search for it not justify ignoring it.

BTW I believe these were inspired by the same Holy Ghost as the OT.

Jesus even said:
(Mat 6:33 ESV) But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.


You are welcome to ignore this as well...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

you don't have principles. You have a legalistic mindset bound to a subjective model - your opinion. You reject God's word in favor of your opinion.

First, the Law of Moses was abolished.
Second, I'm dead to the Law of God.
Thirdly, I'm under the Law of Christ.

And as it relates to the Law of Christ, I'm called to be guided by the Spirit.

The letter killeth, but the Spirit maketh alive.

That is your prerogative but it is sad when you attack someone for taking a Biblical stand.

Dear brother, disagreeing with you isn't an attack. And it is important to understand that not everything in the Bible applies to you. For example, animal sacrifices, dietary laws, Sabbath laws, festival laws, ceremonial laws, ancient civil laws, etc. We both can glean from the types, shadows, and examples under the Law, but we aren't bound to them as Israel was.

The Holy Ghost will NEVER contradict the Bible. The Bible was given by the Holy Ghost:
(2Pe 1:21 ESV) For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

To reject the Word is to reject the Holy Ghost.

Amen. The Holy Spirit will never contradict Scripture. However, the Holy Spirit will often contradict and challenge our human understanding of those Scriptures.

While the Sculptures are infallible, let us always be mindful that our interpretations of it are not.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pliny, how does your church deal with a female new convert who doesn't confirm immediately to your interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5?

How long do you consider get saved while wearing pants?

I teach and preach. I do not demand. It is up to the people that come whether they accept it or not. I do not go to their houses and demand they line up. I am a "watchman" on the wall. I give the warning. The rest is between them and God. I am not a policeman. I am a preacher/teacher. I love them regardless.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Why do I owe cons an apology? It's well documented over these 111 pages and 1100 posts that you and other cons believe it's a sin for women to wear pants. I'm simply stating the obvious. That you don't like it isn't my problem.

Are you saying there are exclusions to your beliefs? If so, what exclusions are there?

Are the women of Jamaica free to wear pants due to the threat of rape or sexual assault?

Are the women of India free to wear pants because it's their culture?

This is a ridiculous argument. As though no woman has ever been raped wearing pants. To assume and charge me with not caring about women being raped is disgusting. I will not hold a dialogue with such ignorant remarks.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

First, the Law of Moses was abolished.
Second, I'm dead to the Law of God.
Thirdly, I'm under the Law of Christ.

Really? So Jesus destroyed the Law? I think I will stick with the Bible:
(Mat 5:17 ESV) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


And as it relates to the Law of Christ, I'm called to be guided by the Spirit.
The Word of God is the same as the Spirit because the Word of God wass given by the Spirit.
(2Pe 1:21 ESV) For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they can never contradict one another.

The letter killeth, but the Spirit maketh alive.
You reject the "truth" (God's Word) and rely only on the Spirit. I embrace both.
(Joh 4:24 ESV) God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Dear brother, disagreeing with you isn't an attack. And it is important to understand that not everything in the Bible applies to you. For example, animal sacrifices, dietary laws, Sabbath laws, festival laws, ceremonial laws, ancient civil laws, etc. We both can glean from the types, shadows, and examples under the Law, but we aren't bound to them as Israel was.
When you intimate that I do not care about women being raped - yes, that is a monsterous attack. I am done. I have said everything multiple times. It is up to the reader to make up their mind.


Amen. The Holy Spirit will never contradict Scripture. However, the Holy Spirit will often contradict and challenge our human understanding of those Scriptures.

While the Sculptures are infallible, let us always be mindful that our interpretations of it are not.

Interpretations can be wrong. So for the last time. Provide BIBLICAL evidence of a godly woman wearing pants. I am done with this thread. So please do not pretend to know or think that I don't care about women being raped. I am completely disgusted with such a low and cowardly argument.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Okay. For you, the Word of God is a minor issue. That is your problem not mine. I have never ate camel so you have no idea what you are talking about.

Never said the Word of God is a minor issue. That's your statement, not mine.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Deu. 22:5 is about what people wear.

And yet it's not about pants. You have used your opinion and belief to twist the scripture to be about pants. I can guarantee you that Moses wasn't thinking about pants when he wrote Deuteronomy 22:5.

Originally Posted by Pliny

I guess you do not believe pants are worn.

At the time Deuteronomy 22:5 was written, no, men did not wear pants. Show me a passage which states that they wore pants at the time in which Moses wrote Deuteronomy 22:5.

Originally Posted by Pliny

You also make the claim that I "spoke with Moses" about an article of clothing unknown at that time. Really? You are wrong on all points. Firstly, thank you for thinking I am smart enough to use a worm hole or whatever to find an anomaly in the time space continuum. Then, you argue that ancient Israeli culture did not wear pants. This completely ignores and tramples upon the the truth.

Which truth? The actual history of dress worn by ancient Israel, or your "truth," which isn't found anywhere in ancient history or culture.

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is the Bible that demonstrates that ancient Israeli's wore pants; hence, the three Israeli young men were, in fact, wearing pants.

At the time Moses wrote Deuteronomy 22:5, the three were not even born. The only mention of bifurcated garments were the "breeches" which were for the priests and Levites, NOT every Israelite man. Both the Bible and Israeli history have written about this.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Pants may or may not have been the popular fashion.
That is not the question. The question is what is "worn". Pants are in fact worn.

Ah, the qualifying statement. By posting this qualifying statement, you're saying you don't know for fact, but since you found 3 Israeli guys who may have been wearing leggings or other sort of garment (Hebrew meaning isn't clear as to which), and since you read of the undergarments the priests and Levites wore ... you believe you're correct that "pants" were worn, buuuuuut, they "may or may not have been the popular fashion."

Just admit it, you don't have a clue. Your belief is all hypothesis and conjecture. You have nothing, no verse, no historical writing which says ancient Israeli men wore pants. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Also, they were in fact worn by ancient godly Israeli men. There is not even a single shred of evidence that a godly woman ever wore them.

Two verses, one is undergarment for priests, the other is a vague reference to either leggings or other garment three (3) Israeli men wore.

Originally Posted by Pliny

You said "There is no scripture where all Israeli men wore pants." This is a ridiculous statement. Holiness is not a popularity contest as implied by your statement.

It's not ridiculous. Prove I'm wrong. You've been posting on and on, yammering about no verse showing a Godly women wore pants, show me where all Israeli men wore pants. You can't.

Originally Posted by Pliny

What matters is whether or not godly men or women wore them. The FACT remains that godly men wore them and godly women did not. This has been established previously.

It has not been established. You have yet to prove your claim. Underwear for priests and a three guys wearing leggings or other garment doesn't prove your claim.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Daniel 3:21 and 3:27 both demonstrate that the three godly Israeli young men were wearing pants. Now, if you can demonstrate where a godly women wore pants PLEASE provide the information.

No, no, no.

petash: (a garment) perhaps leggings
Original Word: פַּטִּישֵׁי
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: petash
Phonetic Spelling: (pat-teesh')
Short Definition: coats

noun [masculine] a garment, meaning dubious, tunic (Thes) or leggings

Word Origin
(Aramaic) of uncertain derivation
Definition
(a garment) perhaps leggings
NASB Translation
coats (1).

Read the verse: "Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace."

I know you like using Dictionary.com when the Hebrew meaning doesn't agree with you:

(used with a plural verb) an article of clothing for the foot and lower part of the leg; stocking or sock.

a.an article of clothing for the leg, extending from about the knee to the ankle and worn with knee breeches.
b.(used with a plural verb) knee breeches.
c.(used with a plural verb) tights, as were worn with, and usually attached to, a doublet.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

This is a ridiculous argument. As though no woman has ever been raped wearing pants. To assume and charge me with not caring about women being raped is disgusting. I will not hold a dialogue with such ignorant remarks.

Oh stop your fake outrage. Own the fact that there aren't any exceptions or exclusions to your "women who wear pants will burn in hell" belief.