Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

that's fine but nowhere is that a literal rendering of the text as the text is strict and to the point. Though I would agree with what it says as a principle just not as what the text reads or even points to.

Maybe nowhere that you've read. I've just read several commentaries that tend to present it as I've stated.


Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man - כלי גבר keli geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word גבר geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armor is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armor before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies particularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and the female. The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male's attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion. Clodius, who dressed himself like a woman that he might mingle with the Roman ladies in the feast of the Bona Dea, was universally execrated.


http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-5.htm

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Maybe nowhere that you've read. I've just read several commentaries that tend to present it as I've stated.


Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man - כלי גבר keli geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word גבר geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armor is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armor before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies particularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and the female. The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male's attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion. Clodius, who dressed himself like a woman that he might mingle with the Roman ladies in the feast of the Bona Dea, was universally execrated.


http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-5.htm

what you quoted as scripture and the limited reasoning of fertility worship are two different things and really are still at odds with the text either way. Notice he clearly show nothing but speculation. also when applying logic to the highlighted bolded area when actually applying MEANING to the text it makes his limited restriction very lacking and little sense and contradictive when apply it to the context of each phrase of deut 22:5. Also he does not deal with the text and its relation to the other words in the text besides Keli and geber. Which is fine but flawed as he does not actually deal with the text but possible definions of the words. Keli... does not strictly mean anything. It is simply things or items of. Also geber is used much more widely than he uses and when it comes to the text it nowhere means that by simple reading the text and apply the words within the phrases.

In my post 156 do you agree with how Deut 22:5 is translated from a more literal point?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

what you quoted as scripture and the limited reasoning of fertility worship are two different things and really are still at odds with the text either way. Notice he clearly show nothing but speculation. also when applying logic to the highlighted bolded area when actualyl applying MEANING to the text it makes his limited restriction very lacking and little sense and contradictive when apply it to the context of each phrase of deut 22:5. Also he does not deal with the text and its relation to the other words in the text besides Keli and geber. Which is fine but he does not actually deal with the text but possible definions of the words. Keli... does not strictly mean anything. It is simply things or items of. Also geber is used much more widely than he uses and when it comes to the text it nowhere means that by simple reading the text and apply the words within the phrases.

In my post 156 do you agree with how Deut 22:5 is translated from a more literal point?

I just listed one commentary - - others present it that way too, so even though it might be speculation, what you are saying is mere speculation too.

Your post (156) is how I've always been taught.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I've understood that Iranian Scythians and Achaemenid Persians were the first to wear trousers. And I know that in Ancient China only soldiers wore trousers. I think that the way they came into society in European culture was in a different manner altogether - frills and heels.

Clothing is meant for distinction and modesty alone. Surrounding circumstances are moot. Europe dictated our culture, not the far or middle east. IMHO.

[Charnock]

I used to find these type of threads fun and humorous. Now I just shake my head and wonder at the complete ignorance involved.

The problem with the Standards Keepers is that they view things on a very low level instead of big picture focus. Minute details are important to them but extremely integral issues like justification and faith are completely ignored.

[Charnock]

One thing I've never understood. If we're really trying to be "Apostolic" why don't we dress like first century Christians (everybody in robes)?

I mean, really, why rage at the cultural shift of the 40s and 50s when it's obvious western culture and dress hasn't been "Apostolic" for more than a millennium.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Clothing is meant for distinction and modesty alone. Surrounding circumstances are moot. Europe dictated our culture, not the far or middle east. IMHO.

That is right, Europe did dictate our culture.

[mfblume]

Standard keepers always argue ANYTHING to keep their standards, since that is the trend behind standards. No scripture can change their minds because, whether they realize it or not, their standards take precedence over the scriptures, and the organization they are in simply has more power over them. So the thread is futile, really.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Standard keepers always argue ANYTHING to keep their standards, since that is the trend behind standards. No scripture can change their minds because, whether they realize it or not, their standards take precedence over the scriptures, and the organization they are in simply has more power over them. So the thread is futile, really.

You've misunderstood my posts if you think I am contending for standards. But, if that issue is on the shoulder, like a Dorito, then everything being discussed is futile.

[houston]

strain at a gnat ... make room for that camel...