The word geber is used to show masculinity.
Job 3:3 Job speaks about his birth. The word geber is used. We are never told in the Bible that Job was a warrior, a man of war. This is the simplest example of the use of geber. But reader you will find that some people don't want simple, they just push agenda.
"May the day of my birth perish, and the night that said, 'A boy is conceived!' Sorry, but Job was speaking of a healthy strong male. Deuteronomy is stressing masculinity, and for the female femininity. Therefore pants, trousers, and breeches were male attire, katastole was for females.
Again, here is the argument that
Deuteronomy 22:5 is religious. That it is concerning pagan rituals of pagans gender blending. Therefore we can draw the logical conclusion that God has no problem with crossdressing if your intent is righteous? Again, flawed logic, also Aquila argues that they Hebrew children who were tossed into the fire were wearing BABYLONIAN ONLY clothing. Yet, previously the rejected pagan foods, and they are being thrown into the fire because they REFUSED to be involved in pagan rituals. Yet, here they are in pagan attire "which is used in pagan rituals" being thrown to their punishment? No, the garments of these three boys were already in use back home in Jerusalem. But, Aquila uses this argument as it even is still viable to the discussion. He therefore believes that if he says something enough times it by proxy becomes truth. Also military excuse is because of one word, the word geber. This also has been refuted, do a word study, look it up in the Hebrew, and in the LXX
Deuteronomy 22:5 the word used is ἀνδρὸς. If there was such an issue to denote military usage of the verse, then the Diaspora Judeans would of had issue with the Greek ἀνδρὸς . Which never happened.
Men dawning female attire pretending to be females? Like Aquila who constantly beat the drum for pants to be mentioned in the verse, homosexuality isn't spoken of in the verse. You see a virtual hodgepodge of different meanings of this one verse from Aquila, because readers he is doing this on the fly. Dedicating more time to Google, then to the verse itself. We don't see anything concerning intent, pagan rituals, military purposes, men wanting to be women. Women wanting to be WARRIORS! Well Sister Alvear loses Warrior Deborah. Even though I don't believe Deborah led armies into battle, we have no Biblical record of females fighting with ancient Israeli military. A woman throwing a millstone over a parapet and killing a man was thought to be disgraceful. Yet, last of all if crossdressing was just about someone's perverted intent, then if we can remove the wrong intent, then the crossdressing is no longer an abomination. That my friends and foes, is called logic.
Never much difference? Then where's really the crossdressing? Aquila states archeological evidence. The oldest pair of clothing found on the planet is a pair of oriental calvarymen pants. Since pants were the primary tool for riding horses into battle. Hence Jesus' wearing embroidered pants in
Revelation 19:16. Yet, we aren't dealing with anyone trying to come to a truthful conclusion. This whole discussion isn't even about clothing good or bad. It is about agenda. Plain and simple, if Jesus preached and David played his harp Aquila wouldn't change his mind. Because it is all about a group of bad people who MAKE other people to bad things? How gross, and I'm the one who is being insulting?
Never rebuked a nation for similar attire?
Deuteronomy 22:5 itself says there attire wasn't similar? You have a law book which has a verse that speaks solely about objects which are NOT similar.
Cultural norms were under
Deuteronomy 22:5 they wore different clothing. the Hebrew meaning is the same as the Greek meaning found in their Greek Old Testament. Which was used throughout the Hellenized Judean world. If the verse was to specifically mean WARRIOR? Then no one had an issue with the Greek usage in
Deuteronomy 22:5 it just means MAN. Canaanite ritual practices in the entire Bible we are never once shown anything about rituals, involving clothes. Or crossdressing rituals. Not saying there wasn't there most certainly was as in Corinth. Yet, the logical conclusion to that is if your intent is pure you can crossdress. Also the pagan crossdressing argument refutes the three Hebrew children's attire hands down.
I would just be repeating myself at this point, because Aquila is pounding this into the dirt. Aquila's position is that crossdressing is fine if intent is pure. That is conclusion I have drawn. If it is religious pagan practice or perversion then if your intent is godly then crossdressing is righteous.
Aquila, that is your world?
Threaded Mode
