PDA

View Full Version : The Ten Commandments Are Not for Gentiles?


SDG
03-25-2008, 12:17 PM
This was posted by Avahat Elohim on Synadelfos ... under the title the The Ten Commandments Were Never Intended for the Gentiles:

What say ye?


There have been many opinions expressed on this topic here. Especially in regard to keeping Shabbat.

May I present the Jewish perspective?

God loves us all. "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a). He does not leave anyone, Jew or non-Jew without guidance. To the non-Jew He has given the Seven Commandments.

After the flood which killed everyone but Noah and his family, God sealed a covenant with Noah with the following seven admonitions:

1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder.
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
6. Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
7. Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to fairly judge observance of the preceding six laws

These Seven Laws of Noah are a set of seven moral imperatives which, according to the Talmud, were given by God to Noah as a binding set of laws for all mankind. Judaism states any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as a Righteous Gentile and is assured of a place in the world to come. Adherents are often called "B'nei Noah" (Children of Noah) or "Noahides" and often network in Jewish synagogues.

In Judaism, the ten commandments given Moses and the resulting 613 mitzvot or "commandments" given in the written Torah, as well as their reasonings in the oral Torah, were only issued to the Jews and are therefore only binding upon them, having inherited the obligation from their ancestors. Some Rabbinic opinion holds that not only are non-Jews not obligated to adhere to all the laws of the Torah, but they are actually forbidden to observe them. Rabbinic Judaism AND its modern-day descendants discourage proselytization. The Noahide Laws are regarded as the way through which non-Jews can have a direct and meaningful relationship with God or at least comply with the minimal requisites of civilization and of divine law.

The Talmud states a non-Jew who keeps the Noahide Law in all its details is said to attain the same spiritual and moral level as Israel's own Kohen Gadol (high priest). In a similar statement Maimonides states in his work Mishneh Torah that a non-Jew who is precise in the observance of these Seven Noahide commandments is considered to be a "Righteous Gentile" and has earned a place in the world to come.

Some such as Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Chabad Lubavitch world Jewish movement believe that the Noahide Laws observance by all humankind will bring about universal peace and the Messianic Redemption.

(However, according to Maimonides, a gentile is considered righteous only if a person follows the Noahide laws specifically because he or she considers them to be of divine origin, through the Torah, and not if they are merely considered to be intellectually compelling or good rules for living.)

From the perspective of traditional halakhah, if a non-Jew keeps all of the laws covered by the Seven Noahide commandments, then he or she is considered a Ger Toshav "Sojourning Alien" amid the people of Israel. A "Ger Toshav" is the only kind of non-Jew who Jewish law permits to live among the Jewish people in the Land of Israel when the land is run according to Halacha and there is Sanhedrin/Temple.

(A Ger Toshav should not be confused with a Ger Tzedek who is a person who prefers to proceed to total conversion to Judaism, a procedure that is traditionally discouraged by Judaism and allowed to take place only after much thought and deliberation over converting.)

At this point I am sure there are others better qualified who would like to take up the discussion on the following topic:

It my understanding that the main disagreement among the early “apostles” was because the gentiles converts to Yeshua where considered by some to be Ger Tzedek and therefore should also obey all the mitzvot, but one Apostle Paul argued that Christianity was not just a division of Judaism and the gentiles should not bring themselves under the law, but were instead saved by “grace.”

(Perhaps part of the reason some thought the gentile coverts to Christianity to be Ger Tzedek may have been in part because of the baptism rituals practiced by Christians, which so closely mirrored those followed by gentiles who converted to Judaism, but that will be a different article).

Shalom

mfblume
03-25-2008, 12:25 PM
Be careful with these reasonings! lol

The issue of implementing NOAHIDE laws into the USA has been serious in the last few years. Many are fighting it, but not for reasons some might think, which we ought to consider. According to Jews who believe this reasoning, Noahide Laws should be implemented in society for Gentiles, but the Christians violate the Noahide Laws through committing idolatry. The idea that God is manifest in flesh is idolatrous to them. This breaks the first Noahide Law in their estimation. Both Jews and Muslims agree Christians thereby commit idolatry. So if these laws WERE implemented, Christianity would be illegal. Really.

The Jews reason that if Christians believe God is manifest in flesh, then they commit idolatry by worshiping flesh -- a physical thing. The fact is Oneness does not worship the flesh since God did not BECOME flesh but MANIFESTED IN flesh. Big difference. Jesus even said His flesh profited nothing, but the Words He spoke were Spirit and life. John 6:63.

Something to consider.

Sister Alvear
03-25-2008, 12:47 PM
very interesting.

Sept5SavedTeen
03-25-2008, 02:10 PM
Be careful with these reasonings! lol

The issue of implementing NOAHIDE laws into the USA has been serious in the last few years. Many are fighting it, but not for reasons some might think, which we ought to consider. According to Jews who believe this reasoning, Noahide Laws should be implemented in society for Gentiles, but the Christians violate the Noahide Laws through committing idolatry. The idea that God is manifest in flesh is idolatrous to them. This breaks the first Noahide Law in their estimation. Both Jews and Muslims agree Christians thereby commit idolatry. So if these laws WERE implemented, Christianity would be illegal. Really.

The Jews reason that if Christians believe God is manifest in flesh, then they commit idolatry by worshiping flesh -- a physical thing. The fact is Oneness does not worship the flesh since God did not BECOME flesh but MANIFESTED IN flesh. Big difference. Jesus even said His flesh profited nothing, but the Words He spoke were Spirit and life. John 6:63.

Something to consider.

So then if this explanation is given to them, would they then consider us to be rightgeous gentiles?

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

mfblume
03-25-2008, 02:28 PM
So then if this explanation is given to them, would they then consider us to be rightgeous gentiles?

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

If they truly understood Oneness, then yes. But they do not, and therefore they group us all as idolators. But how else would they respond to Jesus Christ? He is their arch enemy in their minds.

freeatlast
03-25-2008, 02:57 PM
Daniel . that was the whole counsel of God thru the apostles in Acts 15:28-29. The Noahide laws is all that was required of new Gentile Christians.

It was natural order for the Jewish apostles to come up with this ruling as it was an extension of their own Jewish faith, that any gentile could have a part in the life to come by following the simple laws of the noahide.

Gentiles were never encouraged to attemp to follow the entire mizvot (613 laws of the torah) In fact they were commande NOT TO .

Many do not realize that by going to Duet 22:5 and imposing a false interptretation, we trangress the teaching of the new testament.

Sept5SavedTeen
03-25-2008, 03:00 PM
Daniel . that was the whole counsel of God thru the apostles in Acts 15:28-29. The Noahide laws is all that was required of new Gentile Christians.

It was natural order for the Jewish apostles to come up with this ruling as it was an extension of their own Jewish faith, that any gentile could have a part in the life to come by following the simple laws of the noahide.

Gentiles were never encouraged to attemp to follow the entire mizvot (613 laws of the torah) In fact they were commande NOT TO .

Many do not realize that by going to Duet 22:5 and imposing a false interptretation, we trangress the teaching of the new testament.

If Deut. 22:5 is a moral law are we not commanded to keep it? Can Christians condone and allow cross-dressing?

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

freeatlast
03-25-2008, 03:02 PM
If Deut. 22:5 is a moral law are we not commanded to keep it? Can Christians condone and allow cross-dressing?

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex


Crossdressing is the false intrepretation of that scrtpture.

Sept5SavedTeen
03-25-2008, 03:08 PM
Crossdressing is the false intrepretation of that scrtpture.

Then what does men wearing garments pertaining unto women and women wearing garments pertaining unto men, being an abomination mean?
There may be have been a direct context for that law then, but even now it carries a certain weight and truth that is prudent to follow. I'm not saying we need to be legalistic about dress standards, but women wearing breeches is not acceptable if she is saved and being sanctified.

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

freeatlast
03-25-2008, 03:16 PM
Then what does men wearing garments pertaining unto women and women wearing garments pertaining unto men, being an abomination mean?
There may be have been a direct context for that law then, but even now it carries a certain weight and truth that is prudent to follow. I'm not saying we need to be legalistic about dress standards, but women wearing breeches is not acceptable if she is saved and being sanctified.

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

Get out Strongs and look up the word "man" in Dt 22:5 then look up the very few other places that hebrew "geber" was used in the OT.

You should be able to figure it out.

Let me know if you get stuck.

SDG
03-25-2008, 03:19 PM
Get out Strongs and look up the word "man" in Dt 22:5 then look up the very few other places that hebrew "geber" was used in the OT.

You should be able to figure it out.

Let me know if you get stuck.

There were quite a few other moral laws that brother Alex would like us to follow sandwiched in Deut 22 ... like not mixing fabrics and marrying your rapist.

Deut 22:5 is placed squarely in the middle of, and is completely surrounded by, ceremonial laws. If it is indeed a principle to be literally followed today, why would God choose to bury this verse in the middle of what are clearly ceremonial laws?

SDG
03-25-2008, 03:21 PM
Alex ... the meaning of geber and as it applies to Deut. 22 ...

3) The Bible teaches separation of the sexes and since there is so little distinction between men’s and women’s pants, they are essentially unisex and therefore do not provide adequate separation.

The first assertion, which states that Deuteronomy specifically forbids the wearing of “that which pertaineth unto a man,” deserves careful study. As with the study of any scripture, it is important to read the passage in context and examine the relevant words and their meanings in the original text. A reputable Bible dictionary or lexicon can be an invaluable aid.

The phrase “that which pertaineth,” or simply the word pertaineth in the King James Version of the Bible, is translated from the Hebrew word keliy, which means “article, vessel, implement, or utensil.”1 Translators commonly render keliy as weapon, armor or instrument in the Old Testament. The word man, in both the first and last part of Deut 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).”2 It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).”3 It is apparent that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,
“As the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour 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 armour before her.”4

John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:
“...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, 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 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 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...'” (sic) 5

Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,”
“In another attempt to identify the quintessential 'men's items,' Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior's gear’.”
Rabbi Tilsen further states,

“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...”

Considering the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and the precise nature of those things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is most likely ceremonial law rather than moral law, which would mean that it would have little, if any, implications for Christians today.

http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/women-pants.htm

freeatlast
03-25-2008, 03:35 PM
Alex ... the meaning of geber and as it applies to Deut. 22 ...

3) The Bible teaches separation of the sexes and since there is so little distinction between men’s and women’s pants, they are essentially unisex and therefore do not provide adequate separation.

The first assertion, which states that Deuteronomy specifically forbids the wearing of “that which pertaineth unto a man,” deserves careful study. As with the study of any scripture, it is important to read the passage in context and examine the relevant words and their meanings in the original text. A reputable Bible dictionary or lexicon can be an invaluable aid.

The phrase “that which pertaineth,” or simply the word pertaineth in the King James Version of the Bible, is translated from the Hebrew word keliy, which means “article, vessel, implement, or utensil.”1 Translators commonly render keliy as weapon, armor or instrument in the Old Testament. The word man, in both the first and last part of Deut 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).”2 It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).”3 It is apparent that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,
“As the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour 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 armour before her.”4

John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:
“...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, 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 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 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...'” (sic) 5

Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,”
“In another attempt to identify the quintessential 'men's items,' Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior's gear’.”
Rabbi Tilsen further states,

“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...”

Considering the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and the precise nature of those things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is most likely ceremonial law rather than moral law, which would mean that it would have little, if any, implications for Christians today.

http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/women-pants.htm

And "we" got a woman can not wear a split legged article of clothing out of that.

I had the priveldge of enjoying Christmas dinner this past year with a retired hebrew professor.

his feeling was that no man should be ordained or teaching with out a working knowledge of the bible laguages.

Not so much that you have to be able to speak or write them but to at least realize to understand some passages of scripture we MUST go back to the original languages and the history of he people these scriptures were written to even begin to get a clue what they might mean for us today.

Mrs. LPW
03-25-2008, 04:16 PM
Alex ... the meaning of geber and as it applies to Deut. 22 ...

3) The Bible teaches separation of the sexes and since there is so little distinction between men’s and women’s pants, they are essentially unisex and therefore do not provide adequate separation.

The first assertion, which states that Deuteronomy specifically forbids the wearing of “that which pertaineth unto a man,” deserves careful study. As with the study of any scripture, it is important to read the passage in context and examine the relevant words and their meanings in the original text. A reputable Bible dictionary or lexicon can be an invaluable aid.

The phrase “that which pertaineth,” or simply the word pertaineth in the King James Version of the Bible, is translated from the Hebrew word keliy, which means “article, vessel, implement, or utensil.”1 Translators commonly render keliy as weapon, armor or instrument in the Old Testament. The word man, in both the first and last part of Deut 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).”2 It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).”3 It is apparent that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,
“As the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour 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 armour before her.”4

John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:
“...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, 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 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 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...'” (sic) 5

Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,”
“In another attempt to identify the quintessential 'men's items,' Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior's gear’.”
Rabbi Tilsen further states,

“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...”

Considering the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and the precise nature of those things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is most likely ceremonial law rather than moral law, which would mean that it would have little, if any, implications for Christians today.

http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/women-pants.htm


Are woman who are in the armed forces an abomination?

SDG
03-25-2008, 04:50 PM
Are woman who are in the armed forces an abomination?

Was that your reading of the quote I posted ... I for one didn't get that from it at all, Lady LPW ...

What I did get is that an entire doctrine stating women can't wear pants should not be based on this scripture .... especially viewed a salvific or a fruit of the Spirit.

The myth that somehow some sins are bigger in God's eyes than others ... as some use the word abomination to mean ... is also very precarious.

SDG
03-25-2008, 04:52 PM
very interesting.

Sister A ... why did you find the original post on the 10 commandments not being for the Gentiles interesting?

staysharp
03-25-2008, 05:32 PM
As a repentant, born again believer, we dwell in Christ. Because we dwell in Christ, we are exempt from wrath.
Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

God's wrath is reserved for those who refuse to accept Christs' atoning work on the cross.

Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

As a born again believer, we will not be judged by the law, rather we will be rewarded for our deeds. Christ will give us a crown of life to those who remain faithful to Him.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Revelation 14:13
And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Now, the law was given as a revealer of sin. Paul describes it as a "schoolmaster". Without the law, we would not know sin.

When Christ came and finished the law, he completed it fully and perfectly in His flesh. When we dwell in Him, we dwell in His completed work, we dwell in His perfection. Therefore, we who dwell in Christ are not appointed unto wrath.

1 Thessalonians 1:10
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

1 Thessalonians 5:9
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Since God has released us from Judgment, we who dwell in Christ release others from judgment as well. This is the heart of the Gospel message.

Sept5SavedTeen
03-25-2008, 05:46 PM
There were quite a few other moral laws that brother Alex would like us to follow sandwiched in Deut 22 ... like not mixing fabrics and marrying your rapist.

I found that to be offensive brother.

And I'm going to repeat what you've probably heard ad infinitum "GOD didn't call mixing fabrics an abomination, but HE did call cross dressing an abomination."
I haven't read all that you wrote though, I will study with an open mind and get back to you and freeatlast.

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

Hoovie
03-25-2008, 05:56 PM
Personally, I do not much care what anti-Christ rabbis think we should or should not observe.

Mrs. LPW
03-25-2008, 06:28 PM
Was that your reading of the quote I posted ... I for one didn't get that from it at all, Lady LPW ...

What I did get is that an entire doctrine stating women can't wear pants should not be based on this scripture .... especially viewed a salvific or a fruit of the Spirit.

The myth that somehow some sins are bigger in God's eyes than others ... as some use the word abomination to mean ... is also very precarious.

Yes...

tv1a
03-25-2008, 07:01 PM
I don't buy the argument Deuteronomy 22 was intended to talk about garments of war. There is not much logic in putting a one sentence about army fatigues in that section. If the passage truly meant to mean women shouldn't wear camoflauge or engage in battle, why was it not put in Deuteronomy 20 which gives explicit directives how to fight war. There are other passages which discusses war etiquette and not one of them mention women's apparel as it relates to warfare.

I believe the passage should be interpreted that a woman should dress like a woman. Interpret that how you like.

staysharp
03-25-2008, 07:14 PM
I don't buy the argument Deuteronomy 22 was intended to talk about garments of war. There is not much logic in putting a one sentence about army fatigues in that section. If the passage truly meant to mean women shouldn't wear camoflauge or engage in battle, why was it not put in Deuteronomy 20 which gives explicit directives how to fight war. There are other passages which discusses war etiquette and not one of them mention women's apparel as it relates to warfare.

I believe the passage should be interpreted that a woman should dress like a woman. Interpret that how you like.

Herein lies the problem. "You don't buy the argument." When confronted with the exact meaning of the word, meaning a "warrior", you still argue against the truth.

It doesn't matter what we think or believe. This is the meaning of the word. If you look up the word "man" that is used to describe the human male, you will find a different word.

staysharp
03-25-2008, 07:17 PM
Women Wearing Pants in Church

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dv2TX8H7BI&feature=related

staysharp
03-25-2008, 07:19 PM
Women Wearing Pants. Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTDfN1JWsFw&feature=related

JamDat
03-25-2008, 07:36 PM
Women Wearing Pants. Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTDfN1JWsFw&feature=related

This makes to much sense. :kickcan

jaxfam6
03-25-2008, 07:40 PM
I am so thankful for this. I am set free. I can now do all those things I have never been allowed to do.

Thank you
Thank you

I am so relieved that I can now commit adultry, worship other gods, bear false witness, kill those I don't like, and on and on. Thank you Thank you

I am so glad I have a new revelation.

SDG
03-25-2008, 07:47 PM
I am so thankful for this. I am set free. I can now do all those things I have never been allowed to do.

Thank you
Thank you

I am so relieved that I can now commit adultry, worship other gods, bear false witness, kill those I don't like, and on and on. Thank you Thank you

I am so glad I have a new revelation.

Un poco exagerado, no?:laffatu

The Word is the Word ...

staysharp
03-25-2008, 07:48 PM
I am so thankful for this. I am set free. I can now do all those things I have never been allowed to do.

Thank you
Thank you

I am so relieved that I can now commit adultry, worship other gods, bear false witness, kill those I don't like, and on and on. Thank you Thank you

I am so glad I have a new revelation.

Huh? You got all that from the video? Must've seen something that wasn't there. I don't recall him mentioning adultery, murder or fornication.

staysharp
03-25-2008, 07:49 PM
Un poco exagerado, no?:laffatu

The Word is the Word ...

DA, some people can't handle the truth. It's too painful. However, when confronted with the truth, they still want to discount it.

SDG
03-25-2008, 07:52 PM
DA, some people can't handle the truth. It's too painful. However, when confronted with the truth, they still want to discount it.

And yet they seek to police it and revel in idolizing it ... while shaking their heads haughtily at those who dare to say they have a light of revelation that doesn't coincide w/ theirs ...

http://respiracreative.com/cops.jpg

Mrs. LPW
03-25-2008, 07:58 PM
Herein lies the problem. "You don't buy the argument." When confronted with the exact meaning of the word, meaning a "warrior", you still argue against the truth.

It doesn't matter what we think or believe. This is the meaning of the word. If you look up the word "man" that is used to describe the human male, you will find a different word.

Are woman who are in the armed forces an abomination?

???

staysharp
03-25-2008, 08:00 PM
???

What meaneth this ??? lol

Mrs. LPW
03-25-2008, 08:02 PM
What meaneth this ??? lol

Just asking :) Anyone have an answer?

jaxfam6
03-25-2008, 08:03 PM
Huh? You got all that from the video? Must've seen something that wasn't there. I don't recall him mentioning adultery, murder or fornication.


I was not watching the video I have seen them. I am reacting to the original thread.

jaxfam6
03-25-2008, 08:10 PM
Un poco exagerado, no?:laffatu

The Word is the Word ...


sí pero solamente un poco


glad someone can recognize it for what it is. :)

staysharp
03-25-2008, 08:15 PM
sí pero solamente un poco


glad someone can recognize it for what it is. :)

Well, around here anything is possible. One needs to be prepared for anything. lol

tv1a
03-25-2008, 08:21 PM
Your problem is ignoring one little phrase of Strong's definition: Note the bolden words...

OT:1397 - geber (gheh'-ber); from OT:1396; properly, a valiant man or warrior; generally, a person simply: KJV - every one, man, mighty.

The fact this definition has multiple meanings is not lost in this passage

1 Chron 23:3
3 Now the Levites were numbered from the age of thirty years and upward: and their number by their polls, man by man, was thirty and eight thousand


Are you going to suggest the Levites were mighty warriors?

The problem is with selective interpretation. If the passage was dealing with women wearing combat clothes, it would be with in the section dealing with combat.

There are other scriptures which use the same hebrew word including Job 14:14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.

I don't buy the argument the definition is exclusive.

[quote=staysharp;423638]Herein lies the problem. "You don't buy the argument." When confronted with the exact meaning of the word, meaning a "warrior", you still argue against the truth.

It doesn't matter what we think or believe. This is the meaning of the word. If you look up the word "man" that is used to describe the human male, you will find a different word.[/quot

jaxfam6
03-25-2008, 08:25 PM
Well, around here anything is possible. One needs to be prepared for anything. lol


isn't that how it is with all Apostolic Pentecostal churches, threads, people??

staysharp
03-25-2008, 08:26 PM
Your problem is ignoring one little phrase of Strong's definition: Note the bolden words...



The fact this definition has multiple meanings is not lost in this passage


Are you going to suggest the Levites were mighty warriors?

The problem is with selective interpretation. If the passage was dealing with women wearing combat clothes, it would be with in the section dealing with combat.

There are other scriptures which use the same hebrew word including Job 14:14

I don't buy the argument the definition is exclusive.

[quote=staysharp;423638]Herein lies the problem. "You don't buy the argument." When confronted with the exact meaning of the word, meaning a "warrior", you still argue against the truth.

It doesn't matter what we think or believe. This is the meaning of the word. If you look up the word "man" that is used to describe the human male, you will find a different word.[/quot

Thanks for clarifying. I understand what you are saying. You are not denying it, just don't think it's all inclusive?

tv1a
03-25-2008, 08:33 PM
I lean towards the conservative definition because of the lingering questions I have about the placement of the verse and the verse being used to describe the levites. Not to mention reading the complete definiton of the word.

[quote=tv1a;423738]Your problem is ignoring one little phrase of Strong's definition: Note the bolden words...



The fact this definition has multiple meanings is not lost in this passage


Are you going to suggest the Levites were mighty warriors?

The problem is with selective interpretation. If the passage was dealing with women wearing combat clothes, it would be with in the section dealing with combat.

There are other scriptures which use the same hebrew word including Job 14:14

I don't buy the argument the definition is exclusive.



Thanks for clarifying. I understand what you are saying. You are not denying it, just don't think it's all inclusive?

Encryptus
03-27-2008, 01:49 PM
I am so thankful for this. I am set free. I can now do all those things I have never been allowed to do.

Thank you
Thank you

I am so relieved that I can now commit adultry, worship other gods, bear false witness, kill those I don't like, and on and on. Thank you Thank you

I am so glad I have a new revelation.

Sorry bro. In reading the article it appears there are still seven commandments for "righteous gentiles." So commandments 1-5 would still knock out all your new found fun!!


1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder.
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.

:tissue

mfblume
03-27-2008, 02:08 PM
Anyone ever stop to ask, Where does the Bible list the NOAHIDE LAWS?????

mfblume
03-29-2008, 10:40 PM
Anyone ever stop to ask, Where does the Bible list the NOAHIDE LAWS?????

Bump

Encryptus
03-29-2008, 11:09 PM
Anyone ever stop to ask, Where does the Bible list the NOAHIDE LAWS?????

The Jews generally hold the oral tradition as having been given to Moses and passed down through the generations. It was forbidden to write them. This was followed until the destruction of the temple and scattering of the Jews.

So the short answer. The Jews recognize different Holy Writings.

If I recall the Noahide laws (the commandments reissued to Noah) are found in Sanhedrin 56.

mfblume
03-30-2008, 12:44 PM
The Jews generally hold the oral tradition as having been given to Moses and passed down through the generations. It was forbidden to write them. This was followed until the destruction of the temple and scattering of the Jews.

So the short answer. The Jews recognize different Holy Writings.

If I recall the Noahide laws (the commandments reissued to Noah) are found in Sanhedrin 56.

Thanks for the info.

So it is extrabiblical, therefore, incorrect. I hope everyone realizes this. ;)

Arphaxad
03-30-2008, 03:06 PM
aren't we men warriors in this fight against the kingdom of darkness? Won't find me on the battlefield in a dress.


ARPH :doggyrun

Pressing-On
03-30-2008, 03:42 PM
I don't buy the argument Deuteronomy 22 was intended to talk about garments of war. There is not much logic in putting a one sentence about army fatigues in that section. If the passage truly meant to mean women shouldn't wear camoflauge or engage in battle, why was it not put in Deuteronomy 20 which gives explicit directives how to fight war. There are other passages which discusses war etiquette and not one of them mention women's apparel as it relates to warfare.

I believe the passage should be interpreted that a woman should dress like a woman. Interpret that how you like.
I believe the important word in defining Deut 22:5 would be "wear" as we want to know what is the mindset behind the reference.

I've listed all definitions, below for the word "wear" used in the OT with pertaining scriptures referenced above each Strong's definition.

The definition for the word "wear", hâyâh - 1961, in Deut 22:5 is used one time and only in this passage. It does not mean to simply put on clothing. In the broad sense it means" to exist or become". It also comes from another primary root - hava havah - 1933 - "to breathe, in the sense of existence".

Therefore, I believe the passage in Deut 22:5 is speaking of homosexuality and not simply "putting on some clothing". It implies a deeper meaning.

The normal use of the word "wear", lâbash lâbêsh- 3847, "to put on a garment" is only referred to in Deut 22:11, Esther 6:8, Isaiah 4:1, and Zechariah 14:4. See definition below.


Deut 22:5
H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

H1933
הוה הוא
hâvâ' hâvâh
haw-vaw', haw-vaw'
A primitive root (compare H183, H1961) supposed to mean properly to breathe; to be (in the sense of existence): - be, X have.



Deut 22:11
Esther 6:8
Isaiah 4:1
Zechariah 14:4

H3847
לבשׁ לבשׁ
lâbash lâbêsh
law-bash', law-bashe'
A primitive root; properly wrap around, that is, (by implication) to put on a garment or clothe (oneself, or another), literally or figuratively: - (in) apparel, arm, array (self), clothe (self), come upon, put (on, upon), wear.


Exodus 18:18

H5034
נבל
nâbêl
naw-bale'
A primitive root; to wilt; generally to fall away, fail, faint; figuratively to be foolish or (morally) wicked; causatively to despise, disgrace: - disgrace, dishonour, lightly esteem, fade (away, -ing), fall (down, -ling, off), do foolishly, come to nought, X surely, make vile, wither.


I Sam 2:28
I Sam 22:18

H5375
נסה נשׂא
nâśâ' nâsâh
naw-saw', naw-saw'
A primitive root; to lift, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, absolutely and relatively: - accept, advance, arise, (able to, [armour], suffer to) bear (-er, up), bring (forth), burn, carry (away), cast, contain, desire, ease, exact, exalt (self), extol, fetch, forgive, furnish, further, give, go on, help, high, hold up, honourable (+ man), lade, lay, lift (self) up, lofty, marry, magnify, X needs, obtain, pardon, raise (up), receive, regard, respect, set (up), spare, stir up, + swear, take (away, up), X utterly, wear, yield.

Job 14:19

H7833
שׁחק
shâchaq
shaw-khak'
A primitive root; to comminute (by trituration or attrition): - beat, wear.