More on Skirts

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I still believe it was more of an admonition and ideal. Not a mandate.

So, God Almighty gives "an admonition and ideal", and that's not a mandate?

Meanwhile, some parasitic shmuck in government gives empty useless feel good platitudes and it becomes a mandate? Like your buddies Bernie, Hussein, and Slick Hillary?

lol

That's just too funny.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So, God Almighty gives "an admonition and ideal", and that's not a mandate?

Meanwhile, some parasitic shmuck in government gives empty useless feel good platitudes and it becomes a mandate? Like your buddies Bernie, Hussein, and Slick Hillary?

lol

That's just too funny.

There is a difference between an admonition to the ideal and a mandate. Sure, if at all possible we should indeed strive to reach the ideal circumstance. However, one isn't in sin should the ideal not manifest.

For example, women are admonished to obey their husbands. Now, we can either take that as an admonition or a mandate. If it is an admonition, wives should certainly aspire to obey their husbands in all things. However, if that husband is an abusive idiot, I don't believe that if she draws a line, that her "disobedience" is a sin. I've seen some preachers tell women that they still had to obey men that should have been locked up for how they treated them. If the use of a text can be used to defend, justify, or facilitate abuse, I believe said approach is obviously error.

But I'm a liberal. I'd rather be judged for being too patient, lenient, and merciful than be judged for not being patient, lenient, or merciful enough.

This is where I believe the Scriptures and common sense (wisdom) shake hands. Radical fundamentalists hell bent on letter of the law will often demand mandates out of nearly every single thing they read. However, wisdom is justified of her children.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Thus, there are multiple "translations" for the word. To pick a single definition out and demand that the singular definition is ALL that it can mean is fallacious. It must mean what the author intended it to mean. Those Hebrew scholars who translated the Hebrew into Greek were experts in both languages. They chose a Greek word that simply means "man" not "warrior" as suggested.

I will accept the fact that the Hebrew word גּבר (geber) is properly translated into other languages as man.



Believe what you want, but the fact that a different Hebrew word is used in that passage of Deut. 22:5 still needs to be addressed. Just because the translators translated the word as "man" does not take away from the fact that the original writer had a reason for using the word "geber".

Bottom line in MPO, Deut. 22:5 is not in reference to pants period.

This is quite simple.

Pants according to scripture were worn by men, military Revelation 19:16, three Hebrew men Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego, Daniel 3:21, and Levitical priest Leviticus 6:10. So, while it doesn't give us a laundry list we totally understand that as far as the Bible is concerned pants weren't women wear.

Simple, and easy.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is a difference between an admonition to the ideal and a mandate. Sure, if at all possible we should indeed strive to reach the ideal circumstance. However, one isn't in sin should the ideal not manifest.

For example, women are admonished to obey their husbands. Now, we can either take that as an admonition or a mandate. If it is an admonition, wives should certainly aspire to obey their husbands in all things. However, if that husband is an abusive idiot, I don't believe that if she draws a line, that her "disobedience" is a sin. I've seen some preachers tell women that they still had to obey men that should have been locked up for how they treated them. If the use of a text can be used to defend, justify, or facilitate abuse, I believe said approach is obviously error.

But I'm a liberal. I'd rather be judged for being too patient, lenient, and merciful than be judged for not being patient, lenient, or merciful enough.

This is where I believe the Scriptures and common sense (wisdom) shake hands. Radical fundamentalists hell bent on letter of the law will often demand mandates out of nearly every single thing they read. However, wisdom is justified of her children.

OK, so you believe the Bible is a nice history book which was written to an ancient people. Yet, while you can take some good bits from it, it really is outdated. Women during the Bible times were chattel, and therefore were expected to behave a certain way. We who live in the 21st century have it all figured out and are far more righteous than any outdated Bronze Age deity and his dusty holy book.

That sound about right Aquila?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

As Madras said, projecting. Not that its a surprise or anything.

Which is exactly what you constantly do. You get upset and then you lash out. I make fun of you. Then you leave the forum for a few days and start all over again. Madras? Who is that in his picture?

Originally Posted by Jason B

1)I'm not the model on how we should live.

Thank God for that, because you are a sore head. That's why you such good material. You get all angry, and accuse people of things they never posted.

Originally Posted by Jason B

Never claimed to be, wouldn't want to be.

Yeah, right.

Originally Posted by Jason B

If anything I'm a living case study of Romans 7:14-25. Christ is the example.

Jason, you need salvation. I'm sorry, how long were you in an Apostolic Church?

Originally Posted by Jason B

2)While showing my rightness, I accuse others? How so? Because I called you out for being out of line?

Jason there's no problem with any of that. Called out? No problem, never a problem. But just be ready to take your own poison, what you dish out, will be served back to you. That's the rules. Aquila was the one one who started posting nonsense about stay at home mothers. You are the one who came to massage his shoulders, with tears in your eyes, as you played defender of the fake. No, no Mr Badejo, we have no problem with being called out on anything we post. Just don't weep when the rebuttal comes.

Originally Posted by Jason B

You just want everyone to take your abusive verbal smackdown and say nothing. Get a little push back and you cry bloody murder.

Jason, read your own post, you are the one weeping and wailing and gnashing your teeth. You just don't like anyone telling you that you are mixed up. Creating your own personal form of Churchianity. Just let's see how that turns out for you in about 10 years. Hey, you may be in competition with William Price?

Originally Posted by Jason B

3) You say I'm mixed up on theology, but only because I disagree with you.

My, my, and you would say that I'm wrong because I don't agree with you. This is why religion and religious people are so much fun. The only thing that would be better would be to have you here in person.

No bro, you have all kinds of ecclesiological things bouncing back and forth in your mind. Guys who can list out all the Trinitarian heros to prove where there at in life, haven't a clue what the Trinitarian hero believed, and certainly don't understand what they believe. You may not believe this, but I hope you come back around one day. When you get older you might just figure it out that most of Churchanity history was compiled by two politically religious monsters. Who wrote the history, hid 3/4s of the history, and were engaged in a major battle over the history.

Originally Posted by Jason B

I affirm justification by faith, that God is one, that salvation is exclusively through Christ. There's no confusion.

Bro, everyone from Dan to Beersheba can say the same thing, but believe in it a totally different way. You know that.

Originally Posted by Jason B

There is an admittance that I don't know everything there is to know about theology, soteriology, the person of God, the incarnation, prophecy, and who is and isnt in heaven and hell.

You could of fooled me!

Originally Posted by Jason B

That you believe you have all knowledge on every topic and know so assuredly who is going to heaven and hell, and where the dead already are, just shows your arrogance.

Jason, so you are just as arrogant. To truly believe what you posted you would have to be the most truest flavor of vanilla. You have been run over by postmodernism. You know, homeless people have more honesty, street people are more black and white. They know they need a physician, and they know guys like you are too busy making excuses to pull them out of hell. Knowledge about every topic you are arrogant? Then you shouldn't ever post any of your knowledge. But guess what, we are on a vehicle called the internet. If you or I are wrong someone will pin you or I down. That's the fun sonny boy. I teach Bible studies with people who are armed with technology. Everyone is encouraged to ask questions, and to disagree backed with proof. Been doing it that way for years. But, you know what, never had one person go boo, hoo, hoo, all the way home, when they found out through the Bible that they were wrong. Some got right, and some stayed wrong, but you know what? I still communicate with them all. Arrogant? Why? Because you can't hold your own, because you are unsure? Because you are too busy throwing the Apostolic movement under your bus? You cry too much when you get hit.
If you can dish it out sonny Jim, then be prepared to take as much as you dish out.

Originally Posted by Jason B

Its made worse when you consider that your own view is a newfangled 20th century American view of salvation by a tiny marginalized sect

There you go, I can set my watch to it. Wait for it, wait for it, Jason somewhere in the post to me is going to skin some Apostolic Pentecostal hide.

You don't believe water baptism in Jesus name is in the Bible? You don't believe speaking in tongues is in the Bible? Did you ever speak in tongues? Do you still speak in tongues? Separation of dress was only the 20th century American Christians? Jason, maybe you should read books other than "How to Hate on Pentecostals"

Originally Posted by Jason B

representative of less than 1% of all Christians, that it totally contradicts the scripture that affirms, amongst other things, and that not all will speak in tongues. Beyond that, you embrace the ultra heretical view of full preterism, all while calling me "mixed up"

Jason, what you believe is a hodge podge a plethora of theologies stolen from Trinitarians throughout history. But you aren't even finished yet, you even said you are finished. I'm a heretic? Says who? You? Jason you are still reinventing yourself. Like I said, let's see where you're at in 10 years.

Originally Posted by Jason B

And no I don't hate the "apostolic" movement. But keep telling yourself that.

Now, I'm being very serious. You have an axe to grind. You wanted to be the cape crusader when you stepped into your first Apostolic church. You were allowed into a pulpit when you didn't know which end was up. After being in the movement you were offended. Then you started to hit the books to get even with those who told you the truth. Like I said I hope you get it all straightened out. We aren't the problem Mr Mustang, we aren't the problem.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

OK, so you believe the Bible is a nice history book which was written to an ancient people. Yet, while you can take some good bits from it, it really is outdated. Women during the Bible times were chattel, and therefore were expected to behave a certain way. We who live in the 21st century have it all figured out and are far more righteous than any outdated Bronze Age deity and his dusty holy book.

That sound about right Aquila?

John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:

Not every interpretation of man at the time of Scriptures writing or down through history is truth.

Follow the Spirit, not human interpretations from the Bronze Age.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:

Not every interpretation of man at the time of Scriptures writing or down through history is truth.

Follow the Spirit, not human interpretations from the Bronze Age.

what interpretation of the bible do you use Aquila?

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Amanah

what interpretation of the bible do you use Aquila?

https://play.google.com/store/books/...FQlowQodakkEMA

[Godsdrummer]

As with thread like this, there are always those that come across as if they have it all figured out. Either those on the liberal side or those on the conservative side of things.

But what seems to be the biggest problem with those on the conservative side, is that they cannot see that they are doing just as the Pharisee and religious leaders around the time of Christ. They had put together a whole book of laws that they felt better defined the law God gave to Moses.

I use the Sabbath day man made laws to describe what I mean. God simply said to keep the Sabbath day holy and rest. Man came along and stipulated what that meant to them. As in how far one could walk, or how many sticks one could pick up etc.

The same thing is being done with Deut. 22:5, nowhere does God mention "pants" or anything kin to pants in the passage. Only one occasion does God speak of pants (breeches) and that only for the priest, and he gives the reason for it in the passage. Men and women both wore robes in those days. The very reason God instructed Moses to make breeches for the priest should be evidence of that fact.

Trying to prove men wore pants with a couple of obscure passages about Daniel and Jesus does not prove they were wearing pants. And as I said, lets be consistent if you are going to preach against women wearing pants, lets preach against panties and nylons too, for both are split legged apparel.

Oh well I have said my piece carry on.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

what interpretation of the bible do you use Aquila?

I typically use KJV, NKJV, and ESV. Sometimes I'll look to a more dynamic translation like the NLT for a more conversational expression of a text. But I wouldn't preach or teach from it.