Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What difference does it make since this was the Law of Moses, the Old Testament done away with and replaced by the NT

What difference does it make since you don't adhere to the Old Testament

What difference does it make since at this time pants were not clothing pertaining to men, what they wore were robes like women did.

How can this verse prove women should not wear pants when Pants do not pertain to a man:?

Principle righteousness is never done away. All scripture is given for instruction in righteousness. The Mosaic Covenant/OT was referenced all the time in principle teaching.

distinction in clothing is no different than Paul arguing in 1 cor about order among men and women.

The Law of Moses contain both pure light and shadow. Few things are a abomination and it brings special attention to this verse.

I am arguing about practical understanding not how the distinctive is applied.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I am arguing about practical understanding not how the distinctive is applied.

Practical understanding involves the FACT that God meant culturally acceptable distinctions are the point. Mankind CHANGED the tradition of robes to pants for men. You just refuse the present cultural change for women, which makes you inconsistent. Had you been around in the days of the changeover from robes to pants for men, your actions today prove you would have refused it.

[mfblume]

Some "hilarious" scholarly thoughts by Adam Clarke.

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.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Some "hilarious" scholarly thoughts by Adam Clarke.

congrats Mike you found Adam Clarke... Also the hilarious part is not about the position but your treating of what I asked. Now translate the text.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Practical understanding involves the FACT that God meant culturally acceptable distinctions are the point. Mankind CHANGED the tradition of robes to pants for men. You just refuse the present cultural change for women, which makes you inconsistent. Had you been around in the days of the changeover from robes to pants for men, your actions today prove you would have refused it.

I have not argued application of the text in this thread BUT what it references. I have not said ONE thing about pants or dresses. So quit throwing ME IN THE FOLD.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I have not aruge application of the text in this thread BUT what it references. I have not said ONE thing about pants or dresses. So quit throwing ME IN THE FOLD.

That is what the thread is about, luke2447. Come on. Now, if you are not in the fold, then make a statement that nothing is wrong with women wearing pants. Stop dodging. Or are you hinting that such a stance is ridiculous? I agree siding with that issue is silly. Is that what you are implying, or are you going to dodge this question now, too?

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is what the thread is about, luke2447. Come on. Now, if you are not in the fold, then make a statement that nothing is wrong with women wearing pants. Stop dodging. Or are you hinting that such a stance is ridiculous? I agree siding with that issue is silly. Is that what you are implying, or are you going to dodge this question now, too?

I don't have to argue anything but what I choose. I am simply pointing out a textual argument that is false.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I don't have to argue anything but what I choose. I am simply pointing out a textual argument that is false.

Did not think you could argue it. Who can?

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Did not think you could argue it. Who can?

Mike my point is simple... reread what I am saying in reference to what you said. I am not getting into those aspects. Has nothing to do with ability or not or even position. I will argue the points I have pointed out without getting roped into whatever you feel to throw out as if I have to answer other surrounding things than what I have stated and am focused on.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Principle righteousness is never done away. All scripture is given for instruction in righteousness.

Nobody said righteousness was done away. But the Law never made anyone righteous, You can't just pick and choose what parts of the Law of Moses you can disobey

The Mosaic Covenant/OT was referenced all the time in principle teaching.

Show us where in the NT this part about clothing was referenced then

distinction in clothing is no different than Paul arguing in 1 cor about order among men and women.

Show me one person that denies there should be a distinction in clothing here. You are arguing a strawman. The argument here is not distinction but whether or not women can wear pants

The Law of Moses contain both pure light and shadow. Few things are a abomination and it brings special attention to this verse.

Then simply show where this is fulfilled in the NT. Make your arguments from the NT

I am arguing about practical understanding not how the distinctive is applied.

Again nobody denies there should be a distinction.The disagreement is with someone's idea that women can't wear pants