More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Oh and on a final note, I must believe that if a passage of scripture has room for doubt in any ones mind as to what it means then we should not be trying to force one meaning over other as bible doctrine.

By this logic, no one should ever argue for baptism to be performed using the name of Jesus as in Acts 2:38 and a multitude of other passages. After all, Trinitarians doubt that Acts 2:38 means what it says...

I think I will just stick with what the Bible states!

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Pliny

By this logic, no one should ever argue for baptism to be performed using the name of Jesus as in Acts 2:38 and a multitude of other passages. After all, Trinitarians doubt that Acts 2:38 means what it says...

I think I will just stick with what the Bible states!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Leviticus 6:10, and Exodus 28:42 were trousers that went from the thighs down to the knees. The outer garments were a long coat which reached the feet. Daniel 3:21 speaks of Daniel's cohorts wearing pants. Women didn't wear pants. In ancient history it was cavalrymen wore trousers which reached the calves. Deuteronomy also uses words in the Greek and Hebrew which describes military apparel. Yet, bifurcated garments would of been considered masculine. If we are to refer to the Bible. Also where in Christian history did women start wearing pants? Joan of Arc wasn't burned at the stake for hearing voices. But because she was dressed like a man. Just asking when did the crossdressing start in Christian history?

Thank you

I remember reading that the first "pants" were actually worn by women in the Far East as they worked the rice patties. A Chinese cavalry general equipped his men with them and they became standard riding attire for both men and women throughout the world.

Also, if Leviticus 6:10, and Exodus 28:42 are so obviously "pants", why didn't the writer of Deuteronomy 22:5 far more specific, he clearly had the language to do so???

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
Leviticus 6:10, and Exodus 28:42 were trousers that went from the thighs down to the knees. The outer garments were a long coat which reached the feet. Daniel 3:21 speaks of Daniel's cohorts wearing pants. Women didn't wear pants. In ancient history it was cavalrymen wore trousers which reached the calves. Deuteronomy also uses words in the Greek and Hebrew which describes military apparel. Yet, bifurcated garments would of been considered masculine. If we are to refer to the Bible. Also where in Christian history did women start wearing pants? Joan of Arc wasn't burned at the stake for hearing voices. But because she was dressed like a man. Just asking when did the crossdressing start in Christian history?

Originally Posted by Aquila

I remember reading that the first "pants" were actually worn by women in the Far East as they worked the rice patties. A Chinese cavalry general equipped his men with them and they became standard riding attire for both men and women throughout the world.

Also, if Leviticus 6:10, and Exodus 28:42 are so obviously "pants", why didn't the writer of Deuteronomy 22:5 far more specific, he clearly had the language to do so???

EB

Those type statements are the very reason I began to question the teaching of UPCI on pants for women. You make it sound like what you are saying is fact. That bifurcated apparel was never worn by women in history and was always considered masculine.

The fact is that no one wore anything under their robes except in times of service to God as in the passages you reference above. Which is the reason God instructed breeches on the priest. To cover their nakedness when ministering in the tabernacle.

Of course we can go the other way too. You are so against robes or skirts on men yet scripture speaks several times about skirts on men in the bible. What is that.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Pliny

By this logic, no one should ever argue for baptism to be performed using the name of Jesus as in Acts 2:38 and a multitude of other passages. After all, Trinitarians doubt that Acts 2:38 means what it says...

I think I will just stick with what the Bible states!

Actually Trinitarians do not doubt Acts 2:38 means what it says, rather they believe they are obeying the words of Christ by obeying Matt. 28:19. So if you would rather stick with what the bible says, who are you going to follow the words of Christ or the words of his apostles?

And the whole point of my statement, was that if there is room for debate on a subject. Then I don't believe God is as concerned about the subject as we think he is.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Actually Trinitarians do not doubt Acts 2:38 means what it says, rather they believe they are obeying the words of Christ by obeying Matt. 28:19. So if you would rather stick with what the bible says, who are you going to follow the words of Christ or the words of his apostles?

And the whole point of my statement, was that if there is room for debate on a subject. Then I don't believe God is as concerned about the subject as we think he is.

Really?
Trinitarians never argue that Acts 2:38 means to be baptized BECAUSE of forgiveness of sins?
Trinitarians never argue that Acts 2:38 means to be baptized in the authority of rather than the literal name of Jesus?

You are simply wrong. Trinitarians do NOT believe Acts 2:38 means to be baptized FOR the remission of sins and the do NOT believe that it indicate to have the name of Jesus invoked in baptism. To be sure some will baptize you any way you want because they do not believe baptism matters.

The point that when there is "room for debate" is fallacious because everyone believes there is room for debate when they disagree regardless of the evidence as seen by the Acts 2:38 discussion.

[Scott Pitta]

The Bible covers several cultures over thousands of years. I find it odd that it is treated as if it were one culture.

No one in the NT or in the OT mentions De. 22:5. Not once.

Historians will look upon this fixation as one of the impacts of WW2 on American Christianity.

[Amanah]

But I think we agree that cross dressing is perversion, and that men in dresses are a prominent expression of that perversion. So women in pants are the counterpart of men in dresses. Possibly the reason it was not stressed in the NT is because the culture of the day didn't promote cross dressing.

[good samaritan]

We have a serious problem with headship in this nation. For centuries humankind has lived by a patriarchal system where the father was the lead role in the family. Married women did not work outside of the home or at least not out of the authority of their own husband. In other words women's primary role was to their husband. He was the responsible party for the family.

America was changing at the start of the 20th century, especially after WW2. America made a sacrifice in world war 2 that took mothers out of their homes and into the public workplace. After the war it never was the same. Not long after that, the discovery of the "the pill" aka birth control. Women could then take control of the fruit of their own womb. Moms left home and the family mom became the career woman.

There is no surprise we had the sixties culture. The family structure had been destabilized. Pants and skirts are not the main problem, but the whole system is perverse. To some it is progress. Before the 20th century, "people were archaic", some might say. I wonder how many men were turning themselves into women before that.

I don't blame this problem on women. Where is the men of God who stand on the word of God. Where are the fathers who will tell their daughters you will not wear that or the husbands who will say no. Where is Adam at while Eve was receiving more enlightenment?

Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors,and women rule over them.
O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err,and destroy the way of thy paths

[Aquila]

I get Pliny's point, but I think his logic is flawed. I'm going to play, Devil's Advocate....

Originally Posted by Pliny

Really?
Trinitarians never argue that Acts 2:38 means to be baptized BECAUSE of forgiveness of sins?
Trinitarians never argue that Acts 2:38 means to be baptized in the authority of rather than the literal name of Jesus?

Are you saying that Trinitarians never argue that we should take the literal words of Jesus over the words of the Apostles?

You are simply wrong. Trinitarians do NOT believe Acts 2:38 means to be baptized FOR the remission of sins and the do NOT believe that it indicate to have the name of Jesus invoked in baptism.

Actually, many do. Catholics and Orthodox believe in baptismal regeneration. In addition certain, Church's of Christ believe baptism remits sin.

To be sure some will baptize you any way you want because they do not believe baptism matters.

Or do they believe that baptism is so important it isn't worth the argument over a formula?

The point that when there is "room for debate" is fallacious because everyone believes there is room for debate when they disagree regardless of the evidence as seen by the Acts 2:38 discussion.

I will prove that there is indeed room for debate. Watch this, watch it closely...

Can ANYONE provide a Scripture wherein the actual words (or formula) spoken by an Apostle are clearly stated as they baptize a believer?

3...2...1... GO!