More on Skirts

[n david]

This is a trip.

The cons are openly advocating coddling abominations and not calling sin "sin." At least one claims there are two sets of standards, one set for newborn Christians and one set for mature Christians.

Meanwhile, "liberals" like Aquila and I are branded as meanies and legalists because we refuse to coddle abomination and actually call sin what it is, "sin."

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

What in tarnation? NO!

What I've read and understood is that Deuteronomy 22:5 was a prohibition against women trying to take the role of a man as a warrior and men becoming transvestite prostitutes outside the temple.

Sooo... women in the military are an abomination?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bingo. We have plenty of commentary that states that men and women wore similar attire. And Barnes speaks of the Jews occasionally wearing pantaloons with their inner garments without distinction of gender. It's plain English. What they don't realize is, both men and women wore pantaloons under their garments, especially in the colder months.

Again...
Barnes
Coat - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior, here called the “coat,” or the tunic, was made commonly of linen, and encircled the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons.

Barnes references the priests and is a clear reference to the command to the priests to wear bifurcated garments. Please demonstrate where women were priests. Oh... You cannot do that either.

As to the "commentary" you have -

You cannot even understand Barnes. I have Bible and you claim man's opinion.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

This is a trip.

The cons are openly advocating coddling abominations and not calling sin "sin." At least one claims there are two sets of standards, one set for newborn Christians and one set for mature Christians.

Meanwhile, "liberals" like Aquila and I are branded as meanies and legalists because we refuse to coddle abomination and actually call sin what it is, "sin."

Narcissism is a sin.
You have kicked Christ off His judgment seat and condemn me for not doing so. That is funny. Any other answer and I would be condemned as a Legalistic Crusader who couldn't wait to chop someone down. You see, no matter what answer I give - you would attack it.

it appears to be just another tactic to obfuscate the real issue. Your's and other's lack of Biblical evidence to support your claim.

I don't believe you or Aquila has answered the question:
Is pedophilia okay? Is it sin? Please give me specific Biblical passages to support your position. Since this is your logic for ignoring Deu. 22:5 and what men and women wear.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Thank you for demonstrating you have no idea what you are talking about.

So you believe there were women priests? Barnes noted the Levites which is a clear reference to the command for the priests to wear breeches. So, the only logical conclusion is you believe there were women priests. That is called eisegesis. You and Aquila - two proverbial peas in a pod.

Keep laughing, chuckles. Use that reading comprehension you posted of pages ago. Barnes was NOT speaking only of the Levites. Read it again.

"""Coat - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior, here called the "coat," or the tunic was made commonly of linen and encircled the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests there was another garment to corresponding to pantaloons. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck, and had long or short sleeves. Over this was commonly worn an upper garment, here called "cloak" or mantle. It was made commonly nearly square of different sizes, five or six cubits long, and as many broad and wrapped around the body and thrown off when labor was performed. This was the garment which is said to have been without seam woven throughout. John xix 23 If, said Christ, an adversary wished to obtain at law one of these garments rather than contend with him, let have the other also."""

The comment about the priests was included, but the context as whole was NOT about priests only.

Originally Posted by Pliny

You must believe pedophilia is okay. If not please show where it is specifically condemned.

The truth is, the Bible demonstrates that only godly men wore pants. Godly women did not. Please demonstrate, specifically, where women wore pants.

You know what you did there, right? In your attempt to be cute and try to get that "gotcha" moment, you fell into your own dumb trap. If you cannot provide scripture where cocaine, specifically, is condemned, you must believe pedophilia is okay. If you cannot provide scripture where pot, specifically, is condemned, you must believe pedophilia is okay.

Dumb.

And for the umpteenth time, priests in underwear and 3 Jewish dudes wearing hose don't support your claim that only men wore pants.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Is pedophilia okay? Is it sin? Please give me specific Biblical passages to support your position. Since this is your logic for ignoring Deu. 22:5 and what men and women wear.

Is snorting cocaine okay? Is it sin? Please give me specific Biblical passages to support your position. If you cannot, you must believe pedophilia is okay.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Again...
Barnes
Coat - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior, here called the “coat,” or the tunic, was made commonly of linen, and encircled the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons.

Barnes references the priests and is a clear reference to the command to the priests to wear bifurcated garments. Please demonstrate where women were priests. Oh... You cannot do that either.

As to the "commentary" you have -

You cannot even understand Barnes. I have Bible and you claim man's opinion.

Again, you need to use your reading comprehension. If Barnes was speaking of priests, there would be no need for "as in the case of" to be included. Also, it would state "The Priests," instead of "The Jews."

"Sometimes beneath this garment there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons."

It's basic English grammar.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Sooo... women in the military are an abomination?

"""It being very unseemly and impudent, and contrary to the modesty of her sex; or there shall not be upon her any "instrument of a man" (f), any utensil of his which he makes use of in his trade and business; as if she was employed in it, when her business was not to do the work of men, but to take care of her house and family; and so this law may be opposed to the customs of the Egyptians, as is thought, from whom the Israelites were lately come; whose women, as Herodotus (g) relates, used to trade and merchandise abroad, while the men kept at home; and the word also signifies armour (h), as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides (i) illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus (k) explains it,"take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman;''nor is he to be found fault with so much as he is by a learned writer (l), since he does not restrain it wholly to war, though he thinks it may have a special regard to that; for no doubt the law respects the times of peace as well as war, in neither of which such a practice should obtain: but the Targum of Jonathan very wrongly limits it to the wearing fringed garments, and to phylacteries, which belonged to men: """


"""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."""

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Narcissism is a sin.

Narcissism: excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

You have kicked Christ off His judgment seat and condemn me for not doing so. That is funny. Any other answer and I would be condemned as a Legalistic Crusader who couldn't wait to chop someone down. You see, no matter what answer I give - you would attack it.

I've done no such thing!

You must believe Paul kicked Christ off His judgment seat as well, sin he named sin and stated very clearly that those who were in sin would die.

"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

"But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil"

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

That Paul! How dare he kick Christ off His judgment seat!

Originally Posted by Pliny

You see, no matter what answer I give - you would attack it.

So that keeps you from stating your position? The lion from the Wizard of Oz had more courage in his tucked tail.