Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

BrotherEastman · #1 08-30-2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

lol and read the text and apply it's meaning. It is not limited to just warrior and armour. geber is not strict at all in it's usage.

So, because it isn't strict in its usage we can assume women shall not wear pants?

LUKE2447 · #2 08-31-2011, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

So, because it isn't strict in its usage we can assume women shall not wear pants?

? 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.

BrotherEastman · #3 08-31-2011, 09:51 AM

Quote:

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 · #4 08-31-2011, 12:03 PM

Quote:

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.

BrotherEastman · #5 08-31-2011, 02:21 PM

Quote:

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 · #6 08-31-2011, 02:22 PM

Quote:

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.

BrotherEastman · #7 08-31-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

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.

good point

Narrow Is The Way · #8 09-01-2011, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

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.

There is no such thing as a pair of women's britches. If they aren't for a man, then they are not for anybody. Just because I don't want to wear them does not mean that God intended for my wife to wear them. That is a mindless assertion. Most of the clothing that you find in stores today aren't for anybody to wear. They need to be thrown into a fire somewhere.

LUKE2447 · #9 08-31-2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

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?

uh let's see. WHat does this have to do with pants or me arguing pants or not. We are talking about the text. It is not limited to warrior gear and you really have not even dealt with the subject you pushed. robes or battle garments??

"It could only be one or the other wouldn't you think?" uh shall we begin again.

BrotherEastman · #10 08-31-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

uh let's see. WHat does this have to do with pants or me arguing pants or not. We are talking about the text. It is not limited to warrior gear and you really have not even dealt with the subject you pushed. robes or battle garments??

"It could only be one or the other wouldn't you think?" uh shall we begin again.

Now now Luke, lets be nice.

I am talking about the text; maybe you should start over. lol. you said nothing about pants I'll grant you that; however, the text we are discussing always points to women wearing pants and that was MY POINT, and since you butted in on MY statement, pants on women are the issue along with the text.

I answered your post concerning the text and the Hebrew word gebar as well as the 2nd part of the text. Sorry if it isn't as simple to you as I made it out to be.