Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

? and what does that have to do with the meaning of the text itself and what I said or your point it being that of limited to a warrior per your reference of Blume? The text is not limiting itself to "warrior" and "warrior gear." I have never mentioned pants in this thread. You however have referenced yourself to a statement that Deut 22:5 is about "man" is really "warrior" in the attempt to limit the meaning of the text and what it refers to.

just wondering what you're trying to say. lol What other apparel was there that was just pertaining to men at the time LUKE? they had robes right?

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

just wondering what you're trying to say. lol What other apparel was there that was just pertaining to men at the time LUKE? they had robes right?

wow nice logic... so I guess the second part of Deut 22:5 is pointless.... Men could not wear something they already did since no difference existed in normal clothing of men and women. Oh wait if geber is strictly warriors... it would only refer to warriors and the regular guy could do what he wanted. eehh but since he dressed already with no distinction... pffft Then you have all women would be prohibited but only certain men. Which would somehow mean they could not wear the norm? LOL In the end with your logic of course that would mean they never had any distinction at all, as they daily crossdressed since men dressed like women without distinction as it was just robes... eehhh except for those warriors. yeah... that text makes a lot of sense now.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I was more looking at when the transition of robes to pants evolved for men and why they are still universally a male garment if women have always worn them too.

Please support this assertion

First of all nobody says women have always worn them.

Second nobody is saying women everywhere have worn them for a long time, some time or at some point in antiquity.

The fact is neither men nor women have always worn pants everywhere all the time in history

The reason men have probably is for the same reason men girded their loins. Men needed garments that the did not trip over to fight. That was why Romans wore short skirts. Same with the Kilts. It allowed for free movement while fighting or doing other athletic activities

But even then men wearing pants universally is only a RECENT invention

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I have and the structure of the NT is based upon truth of the OT which is perfected by the Spirit by the new medium of Christ the law upon the heart. THe LAW is placed upon the heart not just in stone to realize. I never said we are under the administration of the OT we are under the adminstration of Christ which will reflect the divine teachings of His own words revealed to all in the OT. My points outside of this thread have always been that righteousness of God is not limited to covenants but are always expressed consistently in the covenants of God. The same law that is #1 and #2 which all the law hangs is still the same law of the new covenant. God doesn not change. divine order of creation is always true until all things are made new and the paradigm changes of our existance.

The NT is NOT based on the OT. You are confusing corrolation with causation. That is a logical fallacy. There are repeated elements of the OT in the NT. Murder is still wrong. But the NT is a New Testament, a New covenant, a new Law. The Law of Love.

We look to the NT. We can, I believe, look at OT versions of the moral laws of God repeated in the NT for clarity, but beside that we can't just go to the Law and decide which laws apply to us today and which do not.

that is nice but I asked for didactic teaching not indirect. Though I would agree with the above.

The word didactic means "teaching"..not sure you knew that or not. The word didactic does not mean "explicit". The bible teachings things both explicitly and implicitly

For example the bible never says "Speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost", yet that never stopped Pentecostals from accepting implied teaching on the subject.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The NT is NOT based on the OT. You are confusing corrolation with causation. That is a logical fallacy. There are repeated elements of the OT in the NT. Murder is still wrong. But the NT is a New Testament, a New covenant, a new Law. The Law of Love.

PRax you don't listen righteousness is NOT COVENANT BOUND but exists beyond covenants. Of course a new covenant is a NEW covenant. LOL. The principles are the same and exist not because it is a covenant but natural law of existance which is the result of God's expression and order given creation. sheeesh

We look to the NT. We can, I believe, look at OT versions of the moral laws of God repeated in the NT for clarity, but beside that we can't just go to the Law and decide which laws apply to us today and which do not.

uhhh so Deut 22:5 is not applicable for today?

The word didactic means "teaching"..not sure you knew that or not. The word didactic does not mean "explicit". The bible teachings things both explicitly and implicitly

yes and it is not teaching on the subject exaclty like Deut 22:5. Didactic can be used according to the context given. People like James White and others use this term just like I did in context of it being taught directly by his word usage with clear reference.

For example the bible never says "Speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost", yet that never stopped Pentecostals from accepting implied teaching on the subject.

Totally agree and James White argued didactic teaching which was referenced as direct by his usage as a doctrine to be known clearly taught and Bernard argued implied teaching.

[Truthseeker]

I do think skirts are more favobale then pants. Its seems women present themselves different in pants in the way they walk, sit, mannerisam etc.....

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

PRax you don't listen righteousness is NOT COVENANT BOUND but exists beyond covenants. Of course a new covenant is a NEW covenant. LOL. The principles are the same and exist not because it is a covenant but natural law of existance which is the result of God's expression and order given creation. sheeesh

I didn't say righteousness is covenant bound.

Righteousness only comes by Jesus Christ...sheeesh

uhhh so Deut 22:5 is not applicable for today?

uhhh, is it taught in the New Covenant or is it just the Law of Moses?

yes and it is not teaching on the subject exaclty like Deut 22:5.

Is it taught in the NT? Is distinction of gender taught? Explicit or Implicit?

Didactic can be used according to the context given. People like James White and others use this term just like I did in context of it being taught directly by his word usage with clear reference.

Didactic means "teaching" or intended for teaching. It's irrelevant whether it's explicit or implicit.

Totally agree and James White argued didactic teaching which was referenced as direct by his usage as a doctrine to be known clearly taught and Bernard argued implied teaching.

"didactic teaching" is sort of an oxymoron. Paul says all scriptures is given for teaching. All scripture is didactic. What the teach is another issue.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I didn't say righteousness is covenant bound.

Righteousness only comes by Jesus Christ...sheeesh

define meaning of righeousness. righteousness can mean many things depending on how it is worded. The law was righteousness as it is God expressed as is the new law by a new medium now expressed. God's Word is righteousness and law as it is order and structure to us. The covenant of the OT/Mosaic cannot be righteousness to us now because it is null and void as a administration of agreement. The New covenant of administration of agreement is by the author/source which is Jesus christ. righteousness of covenant vs righteousness of knowledge. Then you get into justice done toward a person because of faith which is another aspect of righteousness which is related.

uhhh, is it taught in the New Covenant or is it just the Law of Moses?

Prax is it for today or not.

Is it taught in the NT? Is distinction of gender taught? Explicit or Implicit?

concerning only clothing? might be afraid someone might say... how dare you "pick up" a law. shivers.... As if that is picking up a law. lol

Didactic means "teaching" or intended for teaching. It's irrelevant whether it's explicit or implicit.

again people use it in certain ways and you know that.

"didactic teaching" is sort of an oxymoron. Paul says all scriptures is given for teaching. All scripture is didactic. What the teach is another issue.

that was supposed to have been didactic/teaching

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

wow nice logic... so I guess the second part of Deut 22:5 is pointless.... Men could not wear something they already did since no difference existed in normal clothing of men and women. Oh wait if geber is strictly warriors... it would only refer to warriors and the regular guy could do what he wanted. eehh but since he dressed already with no distinction... pffft Then you have all women would be prohibited but only certain men. Which would somehow mean they could not wear the norm? LOL In the end with your logic of course that would mean they never had any distinction at all, as they daily crossdressed since men dressed like women without distinction as it was just robes... eehhh except for those warriors. yeah... that text makes a lot of sense now.

Well, I guess there were men robes and women robes. If I were to use that logic then I could assume the same thing for men and women pants. so which is it Luke? robes or battle garments? It could only be one or the other wouldn't you think?

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Well, I guess there were men robes and women robes. If I were to use that logic then I could assume the same thing for men and women pants. so which is it Luke? robes or battle garments? It could only be one or the other wouldn't you think?

For those men who say ALL pants are made for men, I would ask them to buy a pair of women's jeans at JC Penney and wear them.