Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

You guys are out of your league on this one. We haven't even got to the New Testament yet.
Anybody done a study yet on 1 Timothy 2:9? You need to get some older dictionaries out and find out what words mean.

Apparel today is a very general term that means "any article of clothing." But in the year 1611 the word "apparel" meant "loose, long flowing garment?" Look it up in an old Oxford English Dictionary that has the archaic meanings of words. The Greek word for Apparel is katastole which is an EXACTING WORD meaning a LONG FLOWING GARMENT, This is the ONLY place in the Bible where it is used. What part of a pair of pants is a long flowing garment.There are lots of words for clothing, attire, etc., but this word comes from a verb form which means "to lower." It denoted a loose-fitting outer garment, which was LONG. You can argue this all day long but a pair of pants is NOT a long FLOWING garment.

I don't care how anybody tries to explain this away, we need to find out what these words meant when they were written, not what is claimed they mean now.
I know we are all guilty of finding meanings using webster, etc. but a serious matter like this requires us to look further into the scripture and get ahold of the spirit in which the scripture is written.

This was not written by King James nor was it written by Paul during King James day. It was written nearly 2000 years ago when men wore long flowing robes.

You know who did not wear long flowing robes? Romen Centurians. The wore short skirts.

All this shows is that at the time women wore, like men, long flowing robes. What Paul was instructing was not to wear something everyone was already wearing but to wear MODEST long flowing robes

This was their greek word for "clothing"..he was tellng them to dress modestly not "wear a dress". He was telling them to dress modestly

In fact the definition of this word includes the garment of kings

Vines
connected with katastello, "to send or let down, to lower" (kata, "down," stello, "to send"), was primarily a garment let down; hence, "dress, attire," in general (cp. stole, a loose outer garment worn by kings and persons of rank, Eng., "stole"); 1Ti_2:9, "apparel."

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by houston

calm down, renda. have a sip of sweet tea and ...cool it!

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

You guys are out of your league on this one. We haven't even got to the New Testament yet.
Anybody done a study yet on 1 Timothy 2:9? You need to get some older dictionaries out and find out what words mean.

Apparel today is a very general term that means "any article of clothing." But in the year 1611 the word "apparel" meant "loose, long flowing garment?" Look it up in an old Oxford English Dictionary that has the archaic meanings of words. The Greek word for Apparel is katastole which is an EXACTING WORD meaning a LONG FLOWING GARMENT, This is the ONLY place in the Bible where it is used. What part of a pair of pants is a long flowing garment.There are lots of words for clothing, attire, etc., but this word comes from a verb form which means "to lower." It denoted a loose-fitting outer garment, which was LONG. You can argue this all day long but a pair of pants is NOT a long FLOWING garment.

I don't care how anybody tries to explain this away, we need to find out what these words meant when they were written, not what is claimed they mean now.
I know we are all guilty of finding meanings using webster, etc. but a serious matter like this requires us to look further into the scripture and get ahold of the spirit in which the scripture is written.

Do you enforce the rest of that scripture?

"not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by NorCal

I don't understand how "Christians" can stand for a practice that was born out of rebellion in the 1920's.
May you stand with Cora.

Prove this!

Women started wearing pants when men went off to war and the woman had to go to work outside the home

Fashions have always changed.

Men wore pants because they were the ones fighting and working in the fields.

Men and women have worn pants in history, before the modern era. So, tell us, when man first put on a pair of pants and tossed his skirts or robes, was he being rebellious too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers
Trousers first enter recorded history in the 6th century BCE, with the appearance of horse-riding Iranian peoples in Greek ethnography. At this time, not only the Persians, but also allied Central Asian peoples such as the Bactrians, Armenians, and the Tigraxauda Scythians are known to have worn them.[4][5] Trousers are believed to have been worn by both sexes among these early users

In horse back riding, there is a even a way designed to compensate for a woman rider. It's called SIDESADDLE. It was used for 1000's of years. I think it's funny that we are still having this discussion based on a rebellion and women's lib of the 1920's

Aside from the sidesaddle, you don't have a clue what you are talkikng about. You know what kind of women rode horses all those years? The ones that could afford them. The aristocrats. Those women did not work. They were always dressed to the 9s did not want to ruin their clothing. Dresses for them were the fashions of the day

In Europe, the sidesaddle developed in part because cultural norms for the upper social classes dictated that it was unbecoming for a woman of apparent wealth or high social status to straddle a horse while riding. Further, since long skirts were the required fashion, riding astride in such attire was often impractical and awkward, and it could be "immodest." However, women of status did ride horses and needed to be able to control their own animals, so there was a need for a saddle designed to allow both control of the horse and modesty for the rider

However, in spite of cultural pressures, not all women of the nobility adopted the sidesaddle at all times. Women such as Diane de Poitiers (mistress to Henry II of France) and Marie Antoinette were known to ride astride. Catherine the Great of Russia went so far as to commission a portrait showing her riding astride wearing a male officer's uniform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidesaddle

[Praxeas]

I find that most UCs arguments derive from outside the bible (who can forget the stick persons analogy used on bathroom doors?) and faulty hermeneutics on certain scriptures

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Job 38:3 KJV Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

Saying it is the concept of simply dressing like a man is silly and misses the whole point.

Deut 22: 5 technically was speaking about women wearing men's ARMOUR and military gear, since this is how pagans worshiped Dianna, while men dressed up like women. That is how Deut 22 is involved in the cross-dressing issue. MAN in the verse, describing the clothing of a man, is WARRIOR in Hebrew. Not simply male. So, the similarity in robes was not the differentiating factor. It was the issue of male WARRIORS and women, hence ARMOUR versus feminine attire. Armour was quite different from a robe.

1) Hey Mike why don't you post the other 60+ uses of gheber?

2) So "warrior gear" is off limits in your argument but hey regular daily clothing..... dress how you want? oooookkkkk

3) also could you show me reference to that in scripture concerning that scripture is referencing fertility worship etc..? If not I will put it in poor speculation.

4) WHy does the scripture not change the usage of the word in the second part if it stricly means warrior?

We will stick with these and I will add later.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think we should also look at where this change in culture began. If you study the transition of women from dress to pants, you will find that the women in France, who were involved in politics, began the culture change. The Rational Dress Society in England picked up on that and moved it along to America, where the women in Hollywood championed the change. So, I'm just thinking that I want to see who is instrumental is any type of culture change. And, as is normally true, it is politics and Hollywood that are the strongest voices.

Check to see how the change from robes to pants occurred among men. France again, with Nickers, and high heels, knee high stockings with frilly shirts, amongst the upper dales of politics. So should men not wear pants due to what was involved in the change? Let's not hold to a view at any cost of reason, neither deny a view due to political issues. The clothing is the clothing, period, despite what occurred with politics.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

1) Hey Mike why don't you post the other 60+ uses of gheber?

2) So "warrior gear" is off limits in your argument but hey regular daily clothing..... dress how you want? oooookkkkk

3) also could you show me reference to that in scripture concerning that scripture is referencing fertility worship etc..? If not I will put it in poor speculation.

4) WHy does the scripture not change the usage of the word in the second part if it stricly means warrior?

We will stick with these and I will add later.

It's easy to tell who blindly follows standards. Research the facts, L.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's easy to tell who blindly follows standards. Research the facts, L.

answer the question. I know the facts. A reason why I asked the questions as I have debated this poor argument forever. If you want to argue APPLICATION of the scripture... fine that to me is open for discussion.

To make it limited to warrior gear/warrior and goddess worship.... sorry but the text does not allow for it to be limited that way.

[Praxeas]

His use of Job 38:3 is a great example of ignoring hermeneutics esp taking scripture out of context. There is no evidence Job was wearing a dress and God was correcting him to wear pants like a man. That is just silly distorted delusional thinking of people desparate to prove their views

he was telling Job

Here is what the verse REALLY says

Job 38:3 Now gird up your loins like a man; for I will ask of you, and you teach Me.

Notice the part in bold? This was the reason for God telling Job to gird up his loings like a man.

This is why better translations render it

Job 38:3 Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.
I have to repeat, this is a perfect example of people reading their views into scriptures and ignoring context, grammar and history

Barnes
Gird up now thy loins like a man - To gird up the loins, is a phrase which has allusion to the mode of dress in ancient times. The loose flowing robe which was commonly worn, was fastened with a girdle when men ran, or labored, or engaged in conflict; see the notes at Mat_5:38-41. The idea here is, "Make thyself as strong and vigorous as possible; be prepared to put forth the highest effort." God was about to put him to a task which would require all his ability - that of explaining the facts which were constantly occurring in the universe. The whole passage is ironical. Job had undertaken to tell what he knew of the divine administration, and God now calls upon him to show his claims to the office of such an expositor. So wise a man as he was, who could pronounce on the hidden counsels of the Most High with so much confidence, could assuredly explain those things which pertained to the visible creation. The phrase "like a man" means boldly, courageously; compare the notes at 1Co_16:13.