More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Aquila, do you force (or should I say make) people conform to His image?

Read through the below and tell me how you not tolerate your new neophytes doing the below? I make sure I preach against it all. But I don't make anyone do anything. Do you? Please, show me how you do it?

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is ABOMINATION.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an ABOMINATION: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 22:5

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are
ABOMINATION unto the LORD thy God.

Proverbs 6:16-19

These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an ABOMINATION unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Proverbs 11:20

They that are of a froward heart are ABOMINATION to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight.

Proverbs 12:22

Lying lips are ABOMINATION to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Proverbs 15:26

The thoughts of the wicked are an ABOMINATION to the LORD: but the words of the pure are pleasant words.


Proverbs 15:8

The sacrifice of the wicked is an ABOMINATION to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Proverbs 16:5

Every one that is proud in heart is an ABOMINATION to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

Proverbs 17:15

He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are ABOMINATION to the LORD.

Proverbs 20:10

Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike ABOMINATION to the LORD.

Proverbs 28:9

He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be ABOMINATION.

Was this ever answered?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Was this ever answered?

Yes. Continued rebellion in any of those listed sins is grounds for condemnation and/or spiritual discipline, including disfellowshipping or shunning.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Actually, I don't. But you believe that absence is proof, which it isn't. The history and culture of ancient Israel shows time and again that the difference between the sexes was in color, length and style.


You have nothing but Priests wearing underwear and 3 Jewish dudes in captivity wearing leggings. You ignore culture and history because it doesn't fit your narrative.


Really? You know this as a fact? You were there with Moses and throughout the OT into Jesus' times? Gimme a break.

"""There are three clauses in this passage.

(1) A man’s item shall not be on a woman;

(2) and a man shall not wear a woman’s garment;

(3) whoever does such a thing is an abhorrence unto Adonai.

Note the lack of parallel structure in the first two clauses. We might have expected the verse to say, “(1′) A man may not wear women’s clothes; (2′) and a woman may not wear men’s clothes.” It is no violation of Biblical Hebrew style to repeat the same words in a single sentence, so it is peculiar that we do not have matching phrases. The words “man’s” and “men” come first in both clauses, and in order to allow that, the first clause is passive while the second is active. Moreover, the first clause talks of kli gever “item” or “appurtenance” while the second clause uses the word simlat “dress” or “garment.” It seems that the verse speaks of two differing but related rules.

Nonetheless, some of our sages read these two clauses as if they were the statement of two identical rules, one applying to men, one applying to women. That is, they read it as if it says, “a man or a woman shall not wear the items of the other gender.” But most sages treat the two verses as distinct in intent.

One of the most unusual interpretations is that of the early Aramaic source referred to as Pseudo-Yonatan, a translation of the Hebrew Bible that renders kli gever, “a man’s items” as tsitsit (tallit or prayer shawl) and tefillin (phylacteries or prayer amulets worn by traditionally observant Jews). Since these items are required by Halakha (Jewish law) for men but not for women, they are quintessential “men’s items” and thus are the subject of this law, suggests Pseudo-Yonatan.

A debate has been raging for the past two-thousand years over whether women may wear tallit and tefillin, and if so, which berakha (blessing) they say when putting them on. In the course of that debate the minority who forbid women from wearing tallit and tefillin do not cite this interpretation or this verse as proof of their position. Moreover, none of the mainstream halakhic (legal) interpretations of this verse follow the midrash of Pseudo-Yonatan. Thus, this interpretation, while interesting, has no legal weight.

In another attempt to identify the quintessential “men’s items,” Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited c. 800 C.E.), says, “What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?” He then cites our verse, which he reads this way: “A warrior’s gear may not be put on a woman” (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a “warrior’s gear.”

This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been “unlady-like” for her to use a sword — worse, a violation of the law — because a sword is a man’s tool and so the righteous woman of valor finds an alternate weapon.

While this interpretation does not prevail in later halakhic discussion, it does appear, and so it must be regarded as a viable albeit minority view as to the intent of the first clause. This interpretation has even been cited in the debate over exemption for women from military conscription in modern Israel.

A common understanding of our verse in exegetical and halakhic literature is stated by Rashi, one of the most highly-regarded Talmudists and Biblical commentators of all time (c. 1040-1105 C.E.): “Kli gever, a man’s item should not be on a woman: That she should not appear as a man so she can go out among men, for this is only for the purpose of adultery.”

Likewise, Rashi says, “Simlat Isha, a man shall not wear a women’s garment: So he can go and be among the women.”

Rashi explains the moral force of this: “To`eva, abhorrence: The Torah forbids only garments that may lead to to`eva, abhorrence.” This comment appears in Rashi‘s Torah commentary, so it is not clear whether Rashi is defining the reason for the law or, alternatively, its scope.

Only a few sources spell out what is meant by “women’s clothing” and “men’s clothing.” Women normally wear colorful clothes; men wear white. Most sources leave the particulars undefined, because they realized that while gender distinction in dress is almost universal, the particulars are a matter of local fashion trends. As the Tur (c. 1300 C.E.), the predecessor code of the Shulhan Arukh, puts it: “A woman should not dress in clothes specifically for men lefi minhag hamaqom according to the local fashion” (YD 182).

The intent of the law, in this view, is to prevent men and women from associating with what would normally be a single-sex group of the other gender under false pretenses for purposes of, or in circumstances that are liable to lead to, heterosexual adultery. Rashi seems to limit the prohibition to this case. Thus men and women cross-dressing in other circumstances might not be prohibited, at least if it can be assured that the “abhorrence” will not result."""

They don't pay such attention to detail. They have put all their focus on pants and have failed to see that this verse has nothing to do with women wearing pants.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My issue is with Deuteronomy 22:5 being used to classify anyone woman who wears pants guilty of abomination. An abomination is something especially detestable to God. An abomination isn't a modesty issue. It isn't a Christian discipline issue. It isn't a carnality issue. It is an ABOMINATION. Sins that are listed as abominations can provoke the wrath of God. An abomination is no small issue.

Yet, those who apply Deuteronomy 22:5 to women wearing pants tend to talk about having patience and understanding for women who must "spiritually mature" into wearing skirts and dresses. How can one have patience and allow another to simply "mature" out of an abomination? An abomination is a sin that immediately imperils the soul.

So you would have "conservatives" stand at the door with a list of do's and don'ts? How stupid. I don't care what you think about how I try to reach people. You have now tried again to move the subject from one of fact to one of opinion. Even "abominations" are not the "unpardonable sin". I believe the Bible. Paul said:
(Eph 4:11 ESV) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
(Eph 4:12 ESV) to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

Yes, I absolutely believe people need to be "perfected" (KJV) or "built up" (ESV). According to VWS, this means: "In classical Greek of refitting a ship or setting a bone". Apparently, unlike you, I believe people need time to learn and adjust their lives. And you would castigate a person for showing mercy? Incredible! How Pharisaical of you.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Those who apply Deuteronomy 22:5 to women in pants will then argue that they are not one's judge when pressed. However, if they believe Deuteronomy 22:5 applies to women wearing pants, God has spoken on the issue, has He not? You're not being a "judge" if you declare that a woman's immortal soul is imperiled should she put on pants.

I am certainly not sitting on Christ's judgement seat. Again, you would castigate someone for not judging people? How Pharisaical of you. BTW Didn't you indict "conservatives" for being legalists?

The Pharisees were quick to point out and condemn others and this is what you demand conservatives do? How Pharisaical of you. You have a really twisted view of conservatives. This may be due to your history. If so, please do not project your history onto every conservative you meet.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, after hundreds of posts wherein they adamantly declare that Deuteronomy declares pants on a woman is an abomination... when it comes to applying their position, they water down the severity of an abomination and begin to treat it like a modesty issue.

Sooo... You believe showing mercy is watering down the gospel? Poor Jesus. Why did He provide mercy to the woman caught in adultery? After all, He watered down the "Word" right?

You castigate us for standing on the Bible then, castigate us for showing mercy - like Jesus. You definitely sound Pharisaical.

(Mat 23:23 ESV) "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
(Mat 23:24 ESV) You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

Originally Posted by Aquila

That seems inconsistent to me.

Thankfully, You are not going to sit on Christ's judgement seat either. Your opinion, though meaningful to you, is meaningless to me.

Originally Posted by Aquila

P.S.
My first Pastor, Rev. Huss Shearer, used to say that if the Lord returned while a woman was wearing pants, she'd miss the Rapture. He'd also say that if a woman died before renouncing pants, she'd bust Hell wide open. He made no accommodation for what he thought was an abomination. This, while I disagree with his position, is at least consistent.

So all of your criticism is based upon your personal history and you are projecting this history onto me. Then, you praise the man you could not stand to be under. How utterly tragic. A Shakespearean life of tragedy.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

So you would have "conservatives" stand at the door with a list of do's and don'ts? How stupid.

No one said that.

I don't care what you think about how I try to reach people. You have now tried again to move the subject from one of fact to one of opinion. Even "abominations" are not the "unpardonable sin". I believe the Bible. Paul said:
(Eph 4:11 ESV) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
(Eph 4:12 ESV) to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

Yes, I absolutely believe people need to be "perfected" (KJV) or "built up" (ESV). According to VWS, this means: "In classical Greek of refitting a ship or setting a bone". Apparently, unlike you, I believe people need time to learn and adjust their lives. And you would castigate a person for showing mercy? Incredible! How Pharisaical of you.

By your own definition, this isn't about modesty. It's not about a carnal habit, attitude, or behavior. It's an ABOMINATION. You can allow people to grow, be perfected, and built up in areas that are related to Christian disciplines such as modesty, prayer, attitude, etc. But not ABOMINATION. What you're saying is that a polyamorous group of gay guys could attend your church and continue to live in orgiastic homosexuality (abomination) while you just puppet around in the pulpit trying to perfect them, build them up, and edify them. No. Not in our fellowship. Such an abomination would meet immediate and open rebuke. There would be a call for repentance. If continued, the elders would approach them with witness and admonish repentance. If resisted, they'd be told they are not welcome to attend any longer. They would be shunned and we'd treat them like any other obstinate sinner.

I am certainly not sitting on Christ's judgement seat. Again, you would castigate someone for not judging people? How Pharisaical of you. BTW Didn't you indict "conservatives" for being legalists?

You believe the Bible is clear on this being an ABOMINATION. But you are saying you don't have the commission from Scripture to address it as such. Wow. I'm glad you're not my pastor.

The Pharisees were quick to point out and condemn others and this is what you demand conservatives do? How Pharisaical of you. You have a really twisted view of conservatives. This may be due to your history. If so, please do not project your history onto every conservative you meet.

The Pharisees added a lot to the law and majored in minors. And yet... they ignored more serious sin in their midst. Sound familiar???

Sooo... You believe showing mercy is watering down the gospel? Poor Jesus. Why did He provide mercy to the woman caught in adultery? After all, He watered down the "Word" right?

Mercy is for the repentant. God didn't deep fry Sodom and Gomorrah for nothing.

You castigate us for standing on the Bible then, castigate us for showing mercy - like Jesus. You definitely sound Pharisaical.

No, I'm castigating you for demanding that Scripture describes that something is an abomination... then treating it like it's merely a bad habit.

(Mat 23:23 ESV) "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
(Mat 23:24 ESV) You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

Yep, you make an abomination out of a mole hill... and then refuse to treat it as such.

Thankfully, You are not going to sit on Christ's judgement seat either. Your opinion, though meaningful to you, is meaningless to me.

Abominations are meaningless to you too.

So all of your criticism is based upon your personal history and you are projecting this history onto me. Then, you praise the man you could not stand to be under. How utterly tragic. A Shakespearean life of tragedy.

You're being soft on an abomination. And in doing so, you're watering down the severity of sin that is an abomination.

Don't demand that something be defined as an abomination in dozens and dozens of posts... and then whine like a baby when pressed to treat it as such.

[Aquila]

I'm simply saying... if YOU believe that Deuteronomy 22:5 is about pants on a woman, then a woman in pants is an ABOMINATION. Why don't you treat it like an abomination? Why do you then back off your rant and treat it like it's simply a modesty issue, like we do???

[Aquila]

Here's a good question.

According to YOUR position...

If a woman is born again of the water and of the Spirit, and she continues to wear pants, and she's hit by a bus while wearing her jeans, did she or did she not die in an abominable state??? And will she not be eternally lost over her ladies Jordache?

It is the equivalent of a man having a heart attack while engaged in sodomy with his boyfriend.

Both would die while doing something detestable in God's sight.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

I asked if you believe pedophilia is a sin. Apparently, you cannot answer this simple question since you answered it with your


Then, I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
Apparently you seem to believe that the Bible must specifically state that women should not wear pants.

Originally Posted by n david

Actually, I don't. But you believe that absence is proof, which it isn't. The history and culture of ancient Israel shows time and again that the difference between the sexes was in color, length and style.

Now, you say you do not need specificity. At least now there is some progress. You argue that absence is not proof. This is understandable because you have provided NO Biblical evidence for godly women wearing pants. The Bible also demonstrates that godly men wore pants and godly women did not.

Originally Posted by n david

You have nothing but Priests wearing underwear and 3 Jewish dudes in captivity wearing leggings. You ignore culture and history because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Those "leggings" were pants. Even Aquila has acknowledged this truth. How sad that you cannot accept the fact that they were wearing pants. Of course, you must ignore these Biblical facts because it doesn't fit your narrative. In case you are not aware of this other fact, these ancient Israeli's were part of history and Jewish culture. Therefore, acknowledging them IS acknowledging Jewish history and culture. You are the one ignoring the Bible, Jewish culture and history.

Originally Posted by n david

Really? You know this as a fact? You were there with Moses and throughout the OT into Jesus' times? Gimme a break.

Yes, I know that godly Jewish men wore pants and godly Jewish women did not. How do I know this? Not because I am thousands of years old but because I use the BIBLE. Apparently, you do not think the Bible is a worthy consideration; thus, you use the Talmud instead. How Pharisaical of you. You think the Talmud trumps the Bible. Good to know.

BTW, You did not adequately indicate you were copying and pasting from the Talmud. Some could charge you with plagiarism. This is because it can appear that you are quoting something without proper citation. Proper citations are important because it gives the reader an opportunity to review the quoted material in the context that it was written in.

The Talmud does NOT invalidate the Bible. The Bible invalidates the Talmud whenever they diverge. Please try again. This time, you might consider using the Bible. Oh wait. You can't because the Bible demonstrates that godly men wore pants and godly women did not.

But then again, you are stuck on the idea that the "hosen" they wore must have been water hosen. Yet the people who know better than you or I say:
Dan 3:21 (ABP) Then those men were shackled with their pantaloons,G4552.1 G1473 and tiaras, and leggings, and their garments. And they were thrown into the midst of the [2furnace 3of fire 1burning],

(Dan 3:21 ERV) So Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were tied up and thrown into the hot furnace. They were wearing their robes, pants, cloth caps, and other clothes.

Daniel 3:21 (LXX) Then those men were bound with their coats, and caps, and hose, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace

LXX+
Dan 3:21 τοτεG5119 ADV οιG3588 T-NPM ανδρεςG435 N-NPM εκεινοιG1565 D-NPM επεδηθησανV-API-3P συνG4862 PREP τοιςG3588 T-DPN σαραβαροιςN-DPN αυτωνG846 D-GPM καιG2532 CONJ τιαραιςN-DPF καιG2532 CONJ περικνημισιN-DPF καιG2532 CONJ ενδυμασινG1742 N-DPN αυτωνG846 D-GPM καιG2532 CONJ εβληθησανG906 V-API-3P ειςG1519 PREP μεσονG3319 A-ASM τηςG3588 T-GSF καμινουG2575 N-GSF τουG3588 T-GSN πυροςG4442 N-GSN τηςG3588 T-GSF καιομενηςG2545 V-PMPGS

H5622
סרבּל (Aramaic) (LXX – σαραβαροις)
sarbal
Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature, Marcus Jastrow, 1022a – Pers. Trousers.

Dan 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats (σαραβαρα LXX) changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

LXX+
Dan 3:27 [3:94] καιG2532 CONJ συναγονταιG4863 V-PMI-3P οιG3588 T-NPM σατραπαιN-NPM καιG2532 CONJ οιG3588 T-NPM στρατηγοιG4755 N-NPM καιG2532 CONJ οιG3588 T-NPM τοπαρχαιN-NPM καιG2532 CONJ οιG3588 T-NPM δυνασταιG1413 N-NPM τουG3588 T-GSM βασιλεωςG935 N-GSM καιG2532 CONJ εθεωρουνG2334 V-IAI-3P τουςG3588 T-APM ανδραςG435 N-APM οτιG3754 CONJ ουκG3364 ADV εκυριευσενG2961 V-AAI-3S τοG3588 T-NSN πυρG4442 N-NSN τουG3588 T-GSN σωματοςG4983 N-GSN αυτωνG846 D-GPM καιG2532 CONJ ηG3588 T-NSF θριξG2359 N-NSF τηςG3588 T-GSF κεφαληςG2776 N-GSF αυτωνG846 D-GPM ουκG3364 ADV εφλογισθηG5394 V-API-3S καιG2532 CONJ ταG3588 T-NPN σαραβαραN-NPN αυτωνG846 D-GPM ουκG3364 ADV ηλλοιωθηV-API-3S καιG2532 CONJ οσμηG3744 N-NSF πυροςG4442 N-GSN ουκG3364 ADV ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S ενG1722 PREP αυτοιςG846 D-DPM

Ancient Greek to English Dictionary
σαραβαρα
A loose trousers worn by Scythians, Antiph.201; also = Aramaic sarbālîn, LXX, Thd.Da.3.27 (cf. 21). (Prob. Persian shalvâr or shulvâr (braccae).)

Daniel 3:27 (WEB) The satraps, the deputies, and the governors, and the king's counselors, being gathered together, saw these men, that the fire had no power on their bodies, nor was the hair of their head singed, neither were their pants changed, nor had the smell of fire passed on them.

That's okay. Whenever the facts don't agree with you just ignore them. It may help you sleep at night.

[Aquila]

My position doesn't have this weakness. Deuteronomy 22:5 isn't seen as being about women wearing pants. It's about a gender bending perversion and the debauchery it leads to.

So, when it comes to pants, it is simply a modesty issue. It isn't a matter of "abomination". If a woman dies in pants, one could say she wasn't as modest as she could have been... but she definitely didn't die in an abominable state.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

But you don't apply Deuteronomy 22:5 to other articles of clothing that women wear that were originally designed for men.

Why?

Please demonstrate your assertion. Otherwise, you are making another false claim.