More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have one Scripture with a meaning that is debated by scholars.

Bro, you definitely can't even use this statement! Because everything you and I believe are debated by scholars. You are so two dimensional.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have the example of the high priest being commanded to wear breeches as part of his inner garment.

Aquila the breeches of the priest could be seen as he ascended the altar. How was it seen? It wasn't boxers, unless he was bustin a sag. Like I said this discussion is being performed on the fly by you. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have a second example of three captives who were not even in Israel, but who were in Babylon, under assimilation. They even had Babylonian names. And I assure you, Babylonian attire.

You love taking the position of inconsistency and contradiction hoping they can help you? Bro, these are the same men who refuse a meal, because of its defilement. They already had book, chapter, and verse not to use Babylonian garments. No, Aquila they put on the pants because pants were already part of their clothing. It proves this out in the verse in Greek and Latin. Actually in Latin it uses the Latin word for breeches. Early interpreters employed the word trousers which means bifurcated. Any women in the Bible wearing them? Let's see...ZERO.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Both of your examples are lifted out of context, separated by a thousand years, and you believe these verses are enough to prove men wore Levis in ancient Israel.

Bro, lifted out of context? Seriously? So it was lifted out of context for hundreds of years of Christendom? While they may have spiraled around other doctrines they sure understood what the scripture concerning clothes meant. But I guess Christendom needed to wait for Google Theologians as yourself to be born to straighten us out?

Originally Posted by Aquila

That my friend is not only shoddy evidence and lazy scholarship, it is dishonest. I challenge the reader to look up standard attire of the average man and woman in ancient Israel. They will find no evidence for pants becoming common attire in Judea until after the fall of Rome (which classified cultures wearing pants as barbarian).

Reader, please note how Aquila admits that this is highly debatable subject, and then admonishes you to Google it up? Reread the entire thread again. You will find that scholars are mixed on this, the language (if you use more than one lexicon and dictionaries .

Originally Posted by Aquila

As for all you insults, I forgive you. The truth is, you have an entire religious practice based on so many legalistic errors, you've been conformed into the image of those errors...and not Christ Himself.

What would anyone expect you to say? You have to say the above no matter what we were speaking about that is contrary to your belief system. Bro, you actually believe that you are enlightened and people like me are mongrels who need people like you to bring them to Christ? But your Christ believes that anything goes, while you claim He despises sin, He doesn't. He accepts everyone unconditionally?

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, one should expect such things when engaged in conversation with such people. I pray that you find the peace that surpasses all understanding and the grace that leads to truth. Not just a marginal little doctrinal interpretation supported by the circular logic of legalists, but Truth. When you do, I have no doubt that you'll see the man that you are now in a far different light.

There you have it folks, we were discussing Deuteronomy 22:5. Yet, Aquila who called me an idiot because we are men. Is now rubbing my shoulders and whispering the above into my ears. While he offers me a Worldly Ungodly Mess called Churchanity where nothing is accomplished. Where the society around it swallows it up like a Blob. Until even a blind man tell the sinner from the saint.

Good grief

God bless and keep you and yours.[/QUOTE]

[Aquila]

I knew a man who grew up in an ultra conservative UPCI church. Things preached were:

No pants on women
No shorts on men
No makeup
No beards
No short sleeves
No open toed shoes on women
Sandals permitted on men
Dresses and skirts to the ankle
Dresses and skirts could rise no higher than mid calf while sitting
No colored hosiery
No jewelry, not even a wedding band
No watches unless leather straps
No television
No secular music or radio
No internet unless one installed BeSafe Online, with Senior Pastor and Pastor set as recipients of online reporting
No secular sports
All men must wear suit jackets to service
No cut hair on women
No hair in men that was over the ears or below back neck line
No extreme of hair style
Women were not to wear their hair down
Ladies neck line was to be two inches
No high heeled shoes
Tithing mandatory
Sheaves for Christ mandatory
No change of job, schooling, or major purchase without pastoral permission
All services mandatory for leadership
The husband was the absolute authority of the home. Domestic corporal punishment was strongly encouraged

Any one of these things could send one to Hell.

This man even increased the standards by requiring that his wife wear a head covering or cloth scrunchy over her bun. Nor was she to wear red.

Divorce was rampant in the church, but it was kept discrete. It would take hours to explain the pain, suffering, emotional, psychological, and physical abuse that took place in the church and in this young man's marriage, which eventually fell to pieces as he tried and tried to pray and enforce the rules and gain the winning combination to make it all work.

The divorce was eye opening, to say the least. He now can see the man he had become. He can see how void of love he truly was. He can see that he was never like Jesus. He can see how the abusive advice he was given doomed his marriage from the start.

He finally found Jesus. Today, he knows what grace truly is. Today, he understands that there isn't a secret combination of standards to success or holiness. Today, he knows that love is truly all you need. He opposes legalism with all his being, knowing that it only conforms one into the image of a church, and not Christ Himself. It is an idolatrous form of self worship.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Kilts are RIDICULOUS. Grass skirts are also cultural but no one was wearing them in Judea. You miss the whole point, because you are trying to cram world cultures into a book which wanted the world to conform to it. Not the other way around. My lands, the book was written to people in the Bronze Age, to the first century A.D. Their culture and modesty floors anything you have to offer. Kilts? Grow up. Scotland and being Scottish, good grief. Try being an Apostolic Christian.




That's where you are incorrect. It isn't trying to make you into the MGM idea of the 12 Commandments. But it is working off the template constructed and built by God to an ancient people. These people who had men wearing masculine clothes PANTS, and women wearing katastole DRESSES. You are losing miserably this discussion because if your ancestors wore a bone through their nose, instead of painting themselves blue, and wearing kilts. You be arguing that the Bible allows you to wear a chicken bone through your septum.



They weren't admonished to be part of the Judean tribe of Judah. They were admonished to be Judeans inwardly and cast off their OLD MAN. You being Scottish and wearing a plaid rag around your waist is comical. Why? because while everyone sees it as just plaid designs it meant something to the clan. Which you haven't the foggiest idea. The kilt was more a flag, then anything. With every post you show your cluelessness on everything. Stick to politics, I guess you might fair better. Since politics are in the eye of the beholder.



This argument could work if the Bible was some malleable material created to fit whatever culture. Whatever ideology. You do understand that there are Homosexual churches? Yet, there is no such thing as an active homosexual Christian. You lose the argument when you offer us a Churchanity instead of Biblical Christianity. You attempt to offer a pliable set of scriptures which you can wrest to your own destruction. While blindness may be your cup of tea, it only achieves the destruction of all who follow you through the broadway.
Hey do you have an accent like Scotty from Star Trek? Does that go with the kilt? NO, but bringing the kilt and eskimo seal skin pants has zero to do with a Biblical discussion on Deuteronomy 22:5. Because there were no kilt wearing dingbats, and seal skin wearing goofballs.





Only worn by men. Just like the trousers of the day. Women only wore dresses. NO pant wearing women. Hey cultural for a guy to wear his pants around his hamstrings, but should we argue that women of the same culture do the same? Clean up Dodge, don't grab a gun and join the outlaws.



It was men's wear because it was men's wear since Daniel and Leviticus. Our position isn't defined by culture, especially when the culture is going POST CHRISTIAN. You maniac, in your attempt to bring unity through disunity, you are standing Christian ethics on its head. You change agent you.



That's because YOU have the wrong lens, you want to win the world with the world. You can't you lose the Church with doing that. You proved that your agenda is about justifying the church using POPULAR CULTURE AS ITS PRIMARY LENS. Everything you posted from Dan to Beersheba goes down the drain. Because you have admitted that popular culture is the dictator, not the book, chapter, and verse.




You are now swerving all over the place. You have tethered your Christendom to the burning meteor called popular culture. Which changes constantly by a SIN driven populace.




Don't assure anyone of anything.

We know who you are, Bronze!

In all your bluster, you missed the point. Lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A very simple solution would be for fathers and husbands to simply forbid their daughters or wives to wear pants, and to wear modest dresses or skirts instead. The issue then would have nothing to do with whether or not women can wear pants. The only issue that would come up would be "should wives and daughters obey their husbands?"

And THAT has a very clear, unmistakable, New Testament answer.

Also, it would just drive the liberals, feminists, prog commies, and various other assorted nihilists absolutely crazy, so bonus points for that.

Yes, do that. I think it's a great idea. Go for it. I mean, what could possibly go wrong? You'll be blessed. I just know it.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

When I was younger I was in a revival in Punta Gorda Florida which the young people and I prayed all night long before Sunday services. We fasted and prayed and when morning service would come it was amazing. The power of the Holy Ghost was powerful. People would run to the altar, crying, calling out to Jesus (not Yahshua) JESUS! They would be blowing snot bubbles with tears, repenting. Now, this might all seem normal, but what was the incredible part is that people would throw their contraband on the platform. Jewelry, make up, drugs, cigarettes, women wiping off make up, yanking off earrings, men taking off their jewelry, rings, weapons, etc. But more than that the next time you would see them. The men were clean, haircuts, decent civilian clothes, and the women looked like they just stepped out of UC Apostolicdom. It wasn't about preaching standards because the church was more liberal than Aquila ever dared to be. The church was Cruuuzeematic to the brim. They were hardline against UC of any flavor. Yet, the preacher was preaching prayer, and being totally filled with the Holy Ghost. Preached it for weeks, we prayed continually, and all night on Saturday evening till Sunday morning. The results were unforgettable and not regrettable.

How many are still "living for God"?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Your teaching of DE 22:5 is only against being a transvestite. If a lady wants to wear men's pants it is o.k. even if they are male designer jeans. If it fits better wear it.

There has been a lot of valid arguments made to substantiate the claim that pants are distinctively male attire. Our bathroom signs even make the point and we know the craziness that has been through. People in America don't know which bathroom they should use. Women wearing pants justifies transvestites, if it is alright for a woman to put a pair of men's pants then it is not wrong for a man to put on a woman's dress. In the end DE 22:5 means nothing at all.

But hey it is all about the love, right? I agree we should love man, but what about love God. If we love God we will keep His commandments.

Ask yourself this, and don't counter point. Just answer the question freely.

Is it okay for a man to wear ladies Jordache jeans, with pretty pink sequins up the leg, and heart designs stitched across each back pocket?

I mean, if pants strictly pertain to a man, it should be perfectly acceptable.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have one Scripture with a meaning that is debated by scholars.

So according to this argument there can be no such thing as truth because there is no 100% consensus on anything. For example, Acts 2:38 is debated by Trinitarian scholars as a person being baptized because of remission of sins rather than for the remission of sins. Therefore, based on this argument, baptism in Jesus' name for the remission of sins cannot be trusted.

In fact, many scientists, archaeologists, anthropologists and other highly educated people would argue the entire Bible is a fictionalized story. Thus, based on this argument, the entire Bible must be thrown out because someone debates its authenticity.

Just because someone debates an issue is not cause to ignore it. Jesus argued for educating ourselves (Jn. 5:39). Paul said to hunt for holiness (Heb. 12:4). consider this a moment. What does it mean to hunt? I believe in Paul's mind he meant to track down, to look for signs and follow those signs chasing after holiness.

Aquila does just the opposite. He chases after carnality. This is seen in defining holiness through pagan cultures rather than the Bible. For example, the reliance upon American Indians, Muslims, Eskimo's, Romans etc.

As for me and my house, we will hunt for holiness in our personal lives and attire. In other words, we will base our lives on the timeless principles found ion the word of God, not pagan culture. One of these principles is the fact that godly men wore pants. Godly women did NOT.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have the example of the high priest being commanded to wear breeches as part of his inner garment.

You have a second example of three captives who were not even in Israel, but who were in Babylon, under assimilation. They even had Babylonian names. And I assure you, Babylonian attire.

Both of your examples are lifted out of context, separated by a thousand years, and you believe these verses are enough to prove men wore Levis in ancient Israel.

Here is another false claim. Neither examples have been lifted out of context. It has been said multiple times God demanded that the Levites wear bifurcated garments. This is absolutely true. In fact, at one time you tried to say it was a command specifically for the Levites alone. That was proven wrong by asking the simple question of where. Where in the text provided does it restrict other men from wearing them? Aquila agreed he was wrong.

As to the comment concerning the assimilation of the Hebrew young men, I have to ask really? Do you understand what the word assimilation means? According to Dictionary.com, assimilation means: the state or condition of being assimilated, or of being absorbed into something.

Does rejecting the king's meat to remain pure sound like they were absorbed into Babylonian culture? Apparently you must think so because this is your argument.
Does refusing to bow to an image sound like they had been absorbed into Babylonian culture? Apparently you must think so because, once again, this is your argument.

I believe anyone with any level of critical thinking skill can see the fallacy and absurd nature of this argument. The truth is these young men stood firm against anything that would violate God's law. Guess what? They recognized that they could wear pants and not violate God's law.

So once again please demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants. You can't because they never did. Thus we see a timeless principle: godly men wore pants and godly women did not.

Originally Posted by Aquila

That my friend is not only shoddy evidence and lazy scholarship, it is dishonest. I challenge the reader to look up standard attire of the average man and woman in ancient Israel. They will find no evidence for pants becoming common attire in Judea until after the fall of Rome (which classified cultures wearing pants as barbarian).

You have the audacity to claim "shoddy evidence and lazy scholarship"? To call it dishonest? really?
Aquila has claimed that the Levitical bifurcated garments were specifically for the Levites. This is patently false because nowhere does the text restrict other men from wearing them.
Aquila has argued that the Hebrew young men were assimilated into Babylonian culture, that is why they wore pants. This, as demonstrated above, is also patently false.
Aquila has used Native american Indian culture to substantiate his "claims" as well as many other cultures. Talk about shoddy evidence and lazy scholarship! Since when does pagan culture trump the Bible?
Aquila goes on to ask the reader to " look up standard attire of the average man and woman in ancient Israel". This is dishonest and lazy because it implies that the Levites and the three Hebrew young men were not ancient Jews. How absurd is that?!?!
Aquila then tries to prove his point by appealing to popularity. Whether pants were adopted and made popular is not the question. Thus, this is a Red Herring fallacy. Pants may or may not have been popular in ancient Israel. The fact and the point of discussion is who wore pants in ancient Israel? The answer is singularly one - ancient godly Israelite men wore pants. Godly women did not.

The :shoddy evidence and lazy dishonest scholarship" is one-sided and it is not EB.

Originally Posted by Aquila

As for all you insults, I forgive you. The truth is, you have an entire religious practice based on so many legalistic errors, you've been conformed into the image of those errors...and not Christ Himself. So, one should expect such things when engaged in conversation with such people. I pray that you find the peace that surpasses all understanding and the grace that leads to truth. Not just a marginal little doctrinal interpretation supported by the circular logic of legalists, but Truth. When you do, I have no doubt that you'll see the man that you are now in a far different light.

God bless and keep you and yours.

Note: Aquila tries to take the "moral high ground" by saying "I forgive you"? Yet, Aquila did not apologize for calling others "idiot's" among other things. Then, Aquila launches into another attack.

The truth is based on the Bible. I have not seen any Bible evidence from Aquila. Just the opposite. I have seen, as demonstrated above, Aquila kicking against and fighting against the truth. The truth is ancient godly Jewish men wore pants. Ancient godly Jewish women did not.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Daniel 3:21 and 3:27 are fascinating.
(Dan 3:21 KJV) Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

According to JFB, Babylonian clothing consisted of long "pantaloons", observe:

JFB
Daniel 3:21
coats ... hosen ... hats — Herodotus [1.195] says that the Babylonian costume consisted of three parts: (1) wide, long pantaloons; (2) a woollen shirt; (3) an outer mantle with a girdle round it. So these are specified [Gesenius], “their pantaloons, inner tunics (hosen, or stockings, are not commonly worn in the East), and outer mantles.” Their being cast in so hurriedly, with all their garments on, enhanced the miracle in that not even the smell of fire passed on their clothes, though of delicate, inflammable material.

JFB insists these men were wearing pants.

Albert Barnes cites Gesenius in describing the "coats" as pants, observe:
[Barnes] The word rendered “coats,” is in the margin rendered “mantles.” The Chaldee word (סרבלין sarbâlı̂yn) means, according to Gesenius, the long and wide pantaloons which are worn by the Orientals, from סרבל sarbēl, to cover.

Thus, two commentators agree that they were wearing pants. Some translators even chose to use pants in their translations.

The translators of the ABP and ERV chose to use pants or pantaloons in their translations.
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.


Then, there are the scholars that translated the Hebrew into Greek in the LXX.
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).)


There can be no doubt that a multiplicity of scholars agree, the three Hebrew boys thrown into the fiery furnace were indeed wearing pants.

Now, once again, I ask for someone to demonstrate where a single godly woman wore pants.
The silence has been deafening...

Now, once again, I ask for someone to demonstrate where a single godly woman wore pants.
The silence has been deafening...

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I knew a man who grew up in an ultra conservative UPCI church. Things preached were:

No pants on women
No shorts on men
No makeup
No beards
No short sleeves
No open toed shoes on women
Sandals permitted on men
Dresses and skirts to the ankle
Dresses and skirts could rise no higher than mid calf while sitting
No colored hosiery
No jewelry, not even a wedding band
No watches unless leather straps
No television
No secular music or radio
No internet unless one installed BeSafe Online, with Senior Pastor and Pastor set as recipients of online reporting
No secular sports
All men must wear suit jackets to service
No cut hair on women
No hair in men that was over the ears or below back neck line
No extreme of hair style
Women were not to wear their hair down
Ladies neck line was to be two inches
No high heeled shoes
Tithing mandatory
Sheaves for Christ mandatory
No change of job, schooling, or major purchase without pastoral permission
All services mandatory for leadership
The husband was the absolute authority of the home. Domestic corporal punishment was strongly encouraged

Any one of these things could send one to Hell.

This man even increased the standards by requiring that his wife wear a head covering or cloth scrunchy over her bun. Nor was she to wear red.

Divorce was rampant in the church, but it was kept discrete. It would take hours to explain the pain, suffering, emotional, psychological, and physical abuse that took place in the church and in this young man's marriage, which eventually fell to pieces as he tried and tried to pray and enforce the rules and gain the winning combination to make it all work.

The divorce was eye opening, to say the least. He now can see the man he had become. He can see how void of love he truly was. He can see that he was never like Jesus. He can see how the abusive advice he was given doomed his marriage from the start.

He finally found Jesus. Today, he knows what grace truly is. Today, he understands that there isn't a secret combination of standards to success or holiness. Today, he knows that love is truly all you need. He opposes legalism with all his being, knowing that it only conforms one into the image of a church, and not Christ Himself. It is an idolatrous form of self worship.

That man was Aquila ....

And now you know...the rest of the story.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, you definitely can't even use this statement! Because everything you and I believe are debated by scholars. You are so two dimensional.

You're laying fog.

Aquila the breeches of the priest could be seen as he ascended the altar. How was it seen? It wasn't boxers, unless he was bustin a sag. Like I said this discussion is being performed on the fly by you. Good luck with that.

Obviously the priests weren't wearing these up until this point, our they wouldn't need to be commanded to. Also, the breeches were designed so that as he walked the steps, one couldn't look up his robe and see anything above the knee. Also, it was part of the inner garment.

You love taking the position of inconsistency and contradiction hoping they can help you? Bro, these are the same men who refuse a meal, because of its defilement. They already had book, chapter, and verse not to use Babylonian garments. No, Aquila they put on the pants because pants were already part of their clothing. It proves this out in the verse in Greek and Latin. Actually in Latin it uses the Latin word for breeches. Early interpreters employed the word trousers which means bifurcated. Any women in the Bible wearing them? Let's see...ZERO.

Babylon wasn't the Ramada Inn. They assimilated cultures. They forced cultures to assume their ways. They didn't tolerate defiance against their ways or idols. When faced with wearing the clothing given, or nakedness, they chose the clothes given. Refusal to eat meat sacrificed to idols is not related to dress. One can refuse to eat meat and wear what is issued. The fact that they didn't eat Babylonian meat proves nothing. Oh, they also answered to their Babylonian names.

Bro, lifted out of context? Seriously? So it was lifted out of context for hundreds of years of Christendom? While they may have spiraled around other doctrines they sure understood what the scripture concerning clothes meant. But I guess Christendom needed to wait for Google Theologians as yourself to be born to straighten us out?

Were they right about the Trinity, veneration of saints, establishing a priesthood, indulgences, and other things they lifted out of context and took to the extreme? Yes, it took a generation filled with the Spirit to set numerous doctrines right, but they adopted the Wesleyan holiness code and took it to an extreme as men clamoured for power and position. And yes, a new generation is advancing as the Spirit leads into all truth.

Reader, please note how Aquila admits that this is highly debatable subject, and then admonishes you to Google it up? Reread the entire thread again. You will find that scholars are mixed on this, the language (if you use more than one lexicon and dictionaries .

Scholars aren't that disagreed that pants aren't worn by Israelite males or females. Archeology and history testify to this. No jeans in Judea.

What would anyone expect you to say? You have to say the above no matter what we were speaking about that is contrary to your belief system. Bro, you actually believe that you are enlightened and people like me are mongrels who need people like you to bring them to Christ? But your Christ believes that anything goes, while you claim He despises sin, He doesn't. He accepts everyone unconditionally?

You're bound in a man made tradition.

There you have it folks, we were discussing Deuteronomy 22:5. Yet, Aquila who called me an idiot because we are men. Is now rubbing my shoulders and whispering the above into my ears. While he offers me a Worldly Ungodly Mess called Churchanity where nothing is accomplished. Where the society around it swallows it up like a Blob. Until even a blind man tell the sinner from the saint.

It should be noted that I apologized. You never do.

Good grief

God bless and keep you and yours.

Thank you.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Most of Christian women, if their husband told them that they were to wear only skirts or dresses they would not obey. If the issue was pushed they would probably be divorced. This reveals the Spirit working inside of them. On the flip side most men aren't going to ask that of their wives because they don't care.

So don't teach men to be men who ought to take charge of the issue?

I'm not understanding, no saved woman would leave her husband because he acts like a man.