Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Recommended Posts

  • Members

A kilt is men's wear. What we, in our culture, call women's clothing, is not necessarily women's clothing in other cultures. In the first century, and before, what we call dresses today are similar to what men and women both wore. In our terms, usually a skirt belongs to a woman, a kilt to a man, a shirt to a man, a blouse to a woman, slacks to a woman, trousers to a man.

In Old Testament times, those who desired a close personal relationship had to come to the Israelites, Israel was to be a light to the nations, and not numbered among them. The 'clothing law' was spoken, written, and for Israel, not for the nations. Anyone who came to Israel to convert was to conform to this law.

Now in the New Testament, we are to go to the all the world, where cultures vary tremendously. We are the bearers of the light of God. The standard now is modesty, not a specific clothing law. Believers are to walk by the spirit, and so fulfill the law. Ours is a law of love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

A kilt is not always men's wear, Trell. Women have kilts, too, and they are distinct from the male kilts (and they are actually ceremonial, not daily wear). And, yes, I do think men look silly in them. *shrugs* Just sayin... :icon_smile: And, yes, God is concerned about women not wearing men's apparel and vice versa. That's what Deut. 22:5 is all about. The principle of gender distinction crosses "law" lines. And yes, believer's are to walk by the Spirit...but they are to obey the Book. There are principles that too many people (as Kita said) want to proclaim as their liberty not to follow. And yet, we are told by God not to use our liberty as an occasion to the flesh. Too many Christians proclaim liberty when want they really want is license.

Standing - you can't argue away the fact that God preserved the shoes of ALL of Israel while they were in the wilderness. AND - Moses was, by command of God, speaking to all of Israel when he gave the passover commands. It was the man's duty to get the lamb, but instruction was given to the entire household. Again, your "argument" is silly, and the logical end of your comparison is that women should eat their children. While they are barefoot. :realitycheck:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Trell might ask himself if God is subject to culture, or if His Word applies to all ages and all generations regardless of mans "culture". Some of these argument are down right silly; Scottish men do not have to wear kilts, they choose to; women wearing pants is a choice also, and as Jerry said, many are looking for a "loophole" to justify their whims and traditions.

As for "Standing firm" I will not even bother to address it, it sounds as if he is stuck in the dispensational thing that rips out most of the O.T. because it was written to the Jew. Reminds me of the penknife incident where Jehudi cut out the parts of the scroll he did not like.

Jer 36:20 And they went in to the king into the court, but they laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the ears of the king.
Jer 36:21 So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king.
Jer 36:22 Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him.
Jer 36:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.
You might ask yourself why men wore skirts in the Bible, but when a man wears a kilt (which is a type of skirt) he is looked down upon?

Remember, God didn't put pants on Adam, nor did He put a dress on Eve. Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV) The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

This is part of the Old Testament Law.

If one is going to put themselves under one law found within the Mosaic Law, then one needs to obey the other 612 laws found within the Mosaic Law. If you are guilty of one, you are guilty of all.

But be forewarned, Paul said "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." Galatians 3:10 (KJV)

According to Paul, those women who use Deuteronomy 22:5 as their reason for not wearing pants are under a curse.

The OT Law also says not to committ adultery, covet, lie, steal, hate, murder, commit fornication, incest, etc etc. Jesus didn't do away with the Law, he fulfilled it. So now, the Christian, by loving God and his neighbor as himself WILLINGLY obeys the commandments of the law....out of love....not constraint. Therefore, a Christian woman who loves and respects her fellowman and lives for Jesus instead of SELF will WANT to do the decent thing and act and dress like a LADY instead of conforming to the world and being a stumbling block. Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You might ask yourself why men wore skirts in the Bible, but when a man wears a kilt (which is a type of skirt) he is looked down upon?

Remember, God didn't put pants on Adam, nor did He put a dress on Eve.

It says God made them coats of skins. I'm inclined to believe He made a masculine coat for Adam and feminine one for Eve....Maybe Adam had a rough smelly bear coat and Eve had a nice Mink. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It says God made them coats of skins. I'm inclined to believe He made a masculine coat for Adam and feminine one for Eve....Maybe Adam had a rough smelly bear coat and Eve had a nice Mink. :)
There is no indication of what those 'coats of skins' looked like. We don't know exactly what kind of 'skins' were used. I personally believe it was lamb. But we are not told the styles of those 'coats'.

We should not belittle the Scottish for their wearing of kilts. For all we know, those 'coats of skins' may have resembled kilts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was looking at a book which showed traditional dress for alot of pre-modern people including Mongolians, Arabs, Eskimos etc. In every case, though the clothing styles were very different from our own, the MENS clothing was DISTINCT from the womens.

My sister had a DNA test done on me, for geneological research purposes, which revealed that most of my Y DNA came from Scotland. But this Scottish descendent lives in the USA where our dress has traditionally been dresses for the ladies and pants for the men. Aye, Ye kin daunder aroun in ye wee bittie skirts if'n ye want to lads, But i'll be wearin' me breeks if it's all the same to ye. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just read an interesting article on the origin of pants. The article cites many references. According to the article, pants have been around since before Christ, and that when they first were invented, both men and women wore them.

The article identifies pants as a pagan or barbarian attire.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Barbarians also wore coats, and robes, and shoes, had beards, carried spears, and slept in tents. .If britches were strictly
barbarian clothes then why did God ordain that His priests wear them?


.
Exodus 28:40
And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.
41 And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office.
42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The 'breeches' that God instructed the priests to wear were undergarments... not pants.

That said, it is possible the Greeks understanding of 'breeches' may have been different than that of the Jews?

*of interest concerning 'breeches" in the Word of God is the fact that they are only associated with priests.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You know, if some people would just slow down and pay attention to the WORDS in the word of God, it would help alot of people.

42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
I don't be a'wearin' me Fruit of the Looms to be a'coverin' me nakededness lads..............Why would you need someting to COVER your nakedness if that something is an undergarment? Comprende senior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Who cares what a homosexual does or believes. What does the Scripture say.


Ugh, it shows they know there is a difference in the way a man & woman are to look, that a woman is suppose to look like a woman, not a man, that a man is suppose to look like a man, not a woman, yet many that call their self Christian do not.

Maybe you'll get it after thinking about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...