More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The argument being made is not that "trousers were worn by the average Israelite". Proving that trousers were not worn by the average Israelite proves nothing in this discussion, that's the point you are refusing to notice.

The three Hebrew boys in Babylon has already been addressed, it has been shown that it is unlikely they were wearing Babylonian attire, on the basis of their previous stand against Babylonian food and their then-current stand against Babylonian idolatry.

So, once again:

Well, it's been thoroughly established that according to the Bible, the only people to wear breeches, trousers, pants etc were males.

This should be sufficient to say that breeches, trousers, pants are men's apparel according to the Bible. And since the Bible is the record of Divine Revelation, and since there is no other authoritative record of Divine Revelation besides the Bible, it follows that the Biblical record on any particular subject is the Divine Revelation on that subject.

Which means that God has indeed given His opinion concerning whether or not pants, breeches, trousers, etc are "men's apparel", does it not? It doesn't matter what the Comanches, Eskimos, Arabs, Punjabis, Scotts, Irish, Goths, or Han Chinese did, felt, thought, believed, or practiced. So far, we have God revealing His opinion on the subject of pants, trousers, and breeches. And the record of that opinion is that only men wore them, thus making them men's apparel per the Bible.

Anyone who wishes to demonstrate that women's pants are sanctioned by Scripture, may do so now. Please remember however that data outside the Bible is irrelevent unless it helps explain or demonstrate something already in the Bible. Medo-Persian women dressing like men and riding horses like their husbands does not shed light on the Biblical data. Foreign, nonbiblical definitions of gender specific apparel does not determine what the biblical definitions or examples of gender specific apparel are.

So, if you believe women's pants are Biblically authorised, you would need to show that women's pants are biblically authorised. Or show that women in the Bible wore pants. And that God did not disapprove of them doing so.

The only other option is to demonstrate a different hermeneutic that is Biblical and consistent, and which would lead to the conclusion that women's pants are indeed allowed, but for some reason I haven't seen any evidence that the pro-women's pants crowd has a clue how to do that.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, your Kung Fu is very good!

Amen

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Either Deuteronomy 22:5 is obligatory, or it is not. If it is not, then there is no reason to oppose crossdressing of any kind.

What?!! You don't need Deuteronomy 22:5 to oppose cross dressing, and that is exactly the problem with you guys' interpretation. Y'all NEED this scripture to be picked out of the Law, divorced from textual and historical context and precedent, filtered through a narrow western culture view, and bada bing bafa boom it mean a woman can't wear pants or slacks, and the one that does shall burn in eternal hell fire for doing so. And y'all need this so bad because your textual support is so weak that if y'all can't use Deut 22:5, y'all have nothing left.

Whereas, someone can easily oppose cross dressing using not only old testament prohibitions against homosexuality, but also plain instructions and warnings in the new testament like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Romans 1:24-32, etc.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

What?!! You don't need Deuteronomy 22:5 to oppose cross dressing, and that is exactly the problem with you guys' interpretation. Y'all NEED this scripture to be picked out of the Law, divorced from textual and historical context and precedent, filtered through a

narrow western culture view

, and bada bing bafa boom it mean a woman can't wear pants or slacks, and the one that does shall burn in eternal hell fire for doing so. And y'all need this so bad because your textual support is so weak that if y'all can't use Deut 22:5, y'all have nothing left.

Whereas, someone can easily oppose cross dressing using not only old testament prohibitions against homosexuality, but also plain instructions and warnings in the new testament like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Romans 1:24-32, etc.

How dumb.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason B

What?!! You don't need Deuteronomy 22:5 to oppose cross dressing, and that is exactly the problem with you guys' interpretation. Y'all NEED this scripture to be picked out of the Law, divorced from textual and historical context and precedent, filtered through a narrow western culture view, and bada bing bafa boom it mean a woman can't wear pants or slacks, and the one that does shall burn in eternal hell fire for doing so. And y'all need this so bad because your textual support is so weak that if y'all can't use Deut 22:5, y'all have nothing left.

Whereas, someone can easily oppose cross dressing using not only old testament prohibitions against homosexuality, but also plain instructions and warnings in the new testament like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Romans 1:24-32, etc.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV (9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

No crossdressing mentioned there.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 KJV But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; (9) Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (11) According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

If crossdressing is mentioned there, then are you saying the law was made for crossdressers? Where in the law is crossdressing prohibited? Oh, that's right - Deuteronomy 22:5. Bada bing bada boom? Sure, whatever.

Romans 1:24-32 KJV Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, (31) Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: (32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Where is crossdressing mentioned here? Let met tell you - it's not mentioned there.

You think crossdressers are sodomites? Do you realise that approximately 50% if not more of the male crossdressing (drag queen) community are heterosexual? You knew that, right? Cause you study all that exter bibleekuhl dater, doncha?

Please, try again. You have used up 1 of three attempts at basic reasoning. If you need assistance, press 1 for more options. Have a nice day!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Please, try again. You have used up 1 of three attempts at basic reasoning. If you need assistance, press 1 for more options. Have a nice day!

I am Groot.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I am Groot.

lol

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Jason B

What?!! You don't need Deuteronomy 22:5 to oppose cross dressing, and that is exactly the problem with you guys' interpretation. Y'all NEED this scripture to be picked out of the Law, divorced from textual and historical context and precedent, filtered through a narrow western culture view, and bada bing bafa boom it mean a woman can't wear pants or slacks, and the one that does shall burn in eternal hell fire for doing so. And y'all need this so bad because your textual support is so weak that if y'all can't use Deut 22:5, y'all have nothing left.

Whereas, someone can easily oppose cross dressing using not only old testament prohibitions against homosexuality, but also plain instructions and warnings in the new testament like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Romans 1:24-32, etc.

Let's talk about picking scriptures out of vacuums shall we?
All any one has done in opposition is offer a vacuum of scriptural precedent for godly women wearing pants. If you disagree with this, provide positive proof of godly women wearing pants from a Biblical perspective. I have asked for this several times now and so far there has been NO scriptural support for the opposing view.

Nothing was "picked from the Law". Actually, it is quite clear. The only thing "divorced from textual and historical context" has been the opposition. The presentation of the opposition is nothing more than an object lesson on how far a person will go to justify themselves. There is a complete disregard for Biblical precedent and a total and complete desire toy use pagan culture, absent any and all Biblical support, to justify their opposition.

This can all be wrapped up by providing the one thing that has been asked for multiple times, where in the Bible did a godly woman wear pants. It's as simple as that.

The fact that this has not been demonstrated reveals where your proverbial "vacuum" lies.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, the New Testament gives us enough to admonish against cross dressing:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 King James Version (KJV)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (woman like), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (homosexuals),
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The word "effeminate" means:

Effeminate
ef·fem·i·nate.
[?'fem?n?t]
ADJECTIVE
(of a man) having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman; unmanly.
synonyms: womanish · effete · foppish · unmanly · feminine · camp · campy · flaming

So, a man dressing like a lady in any manner would be effeminate.

Didn't realize you'd already addressed this. Yep quite simple.

I do think Deut 22:5 has value as use as a principle and compliments the clear NT prohibitions against cross dressing and homosexuality (neither of which really need a ton of didactic text, since anyone truly filled with the Spirit also has enough God given common sense to know such things are sinful).

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Didn't realize you'd already addressed this. Yep quite simple.

I do think Deut 22:5 has value as use as a principle and compliments the clear NT prohibitions against cross dressing and homosexuality (neither of which really need a ton of didactic text, since anyone truly filled with the Spirit also has enough God given common sense to know such things are sinful).

Another attempt to make Deuteronomy 22:5 about sexual intent.

Which can only mean if you are heterosexual you can cross dress.

Jason, don't you need to teach someone a Bible study on the Trinity?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Didn't realize you'd already addressed this. Yep quite simple.

I do think Deut 22:5 has value as use as a principle and compliments the clear NT prohibitions against cross dressing and homosexuality (neither of which really need a ton of didactic text, since anyone truly filled with the Spirit also has enough God given common sense to know such things are sinful).

You apparently don't get out much. Do you realise there are gay apostolic churches (so-called), right? Try telling them that if they had enough of the Spirit they'd have some spiritual common sense to know they were wrong, and they will demand book, chapter, and verse. And when you give them book, chapter, and verse, they will wax eloquent about "historical context... middle eastern culture... narrow-minded western victorian social mores... mean spirited conservatives keeping the parishoners down like cinderella's evil step mother..." etc etc.

Many of us would say that if YOU had enough Holy Ghost YOU'D have the spiritual common sense to know women ought not to wear pants, but that prolly wouldn't mean anything to you, now would it?

Because unlike liberal, progressive religionists, some of us actually want BIBLE VERSES for BIBLE DOCTRINES and CHRISTIAN FAITH and PRACTICE, instead of just flying by what ever tickles the seat of our pants.