"Women Dressing as a Man etc." (Don't Worry, It's not what you think....)

I have a Jewish friend who is a Baptist, leaning toward a Messianic church. His parents are from Israel, if I remember right he was born there also and still has close ties to family there. He knows a lot of the culture, history and graduated bible college. I haven't contacted him for some time but if you would like, I can try to see if he can help point me to some resources for you.

 

So once again you are calling those of us who wear pants lesbians.
Can't you just use scripture, we gave you every listing in the bible for breeches, read them soometimes instead if always turning to someone or something else, use a lexicon to learn hebrew and greek word meanings.
And stop insulting us by calling us lesbians. If thats the best you can do it's plain pitful.

 

Don't worry it's not what you think? But... We're Lesbians again?

Ug... Not again!

And Jesus wore a long robe, as did his disciples. Their clothing was almost identical to the womens clothing.......

I'm so sick of this 'wear pants = Lesbian' mentality. What Jesus did for me on Calvary is much more powerful than any blue jeans vs dresses debate.

Diane

 

Funny, Wearing jeans has NEVER made me feel attracted to a woman.

 

LOL.. Not tonight honey! I wore JEANS today!

 

ROTFL!

 

Yeah... all this time I thought 'they' were trying to say it was in their genes but now I find out they meant it's our JEANS!

Calling Dr. Bob, Oh Dr. Bob!

 

I ask my friend a very wise Baptist/Messianic Jew about this seperately. He gave very wise replies. So I decided to share them before waiting for a reply. First on the meaning of dog.

He replied:


Hebrew word in question is "goy."
Like all Hebew words, it has a cluster of meanings. In this case, the
literal meaning is "nation." The implied meaning is "anyone who is not a
Jew." Then there's the subtle dig. The word can also mean "dog," meaning of
course, that everyone who is not a Jew is a dog. In Middle Eastern cultures,
dogs are the lowest of animals. They are unclean and a nuisance. So, the
implication goes, are goyim. Jesus uses this train of thought in the
oft-misunderstood episode where the Samaritan woman asks for healing and he
replies that it is not fit to take the children's food and give it to the
dogs. She understands that the gospel is for the Jews first but also that
the goyim will have their day. Hence her reply that even the dogs can dine
off the crumbs from the children's table. Jesus is pleased with the depth of
her understanding and heals her.

Now, I suspect that the first reaction of most non-Jews and many Jews as
well would be horror and offense. Even in the Hebrew language, Jews are
chosen and non-Jews are dogs. What racism! You don't have to look far in the
New Testament (particularly Acts) to see this tension played out over and
over again. But look to the parable of the Prodigal Son. Both Jews (the
clean older brother) and goyim (the filthy younger brother) are children of
the Father. Both were born to be his sons. The difference between them is
not genetics but position. One is near and the other far. It is not genetics
that makes the goyim dogs. It is their separation from the Father. When they
return, he runs out to greet them, dresses them in the finest robes, and
slaughters the fattened calf for them. God the Father loves goyim just as
much as he loves Jews.

The end of the parable is also important. The older brother is jealous
because he had considered himself superior to the younger for many years.
During those years, he had stayed by his father's side and done his father's
bidding (or so he thought anyway) but, in the end, his filthy younger
brother gets the honor that he considers his exclusive birthright. He has no
understanding of grace. If he does not understand his brother's salvation,
then he cannot understand his own. In the same way, many First Century Jews
rejected the gospel precisely because it provided an easy way into the
Kingdom for the goyim. They just couldn't bear the humiliation of sharing
with the dogs.

Now I ask the Greek but his answer says Hebrew. So I am assuming it is the same meaning since the new testament is in harmony with the old.

I ask specifically about dress women's vs. mens clothes. He replied:

You might find Acts chapter 15 helpful. It covers the First Jerusalem
Council where the Church struggles with the issue of whether a man first had
to become Jewish and obey the Law of Moses in order to become a Christian.

There is an element of Messianic Judaism which, it seems to me, is bent on
turning non-Jewish Christians into Jews. This is exactly what the first
century Judaizers were trying to do. In Acts 15, we see the Apostles dealing
with the issue decisively. It also seems to me that St. Paul (aka Rabbi
Saul) wrote his epistle to the Galatians to deal with precisely the same
problem. I think the tone of that particular letter speaks volumes about his
feelings on the subject. Judaizing upset him to no end because it was an
ungodly addition to the Gospel.

I observe the Hebrew calendar and keep kosher as a testimony to the world
that God has faithfully preserved the offspring of Jacob as a pecular people
for himself, despite innumerable attempts by various nations to destroy us.
This observance does not save me. In fact, it is not about me at all. It is
all about proclaiming God's faithfulness to the nations. My salvation is by
grace through faith. Certainly, my salvation manifests itself in obedience,
but my obedience is not to the 613 laws of Moses per se. Romans 7:1-4 tell
me that the Law of Moses is eternal and binds me as long as I live, but I
have died and been resurrected with Christ and am therefore freed from the
Law of Moses which was but a shadow so that I might obey the Living Word.
The Gospel freed me from the shadows so I might obey the light. Or to put it
another way, Jesus broke the chains that bound me to one master so I might
be free to follow another.

Many Christians find this liberty disconcerting. They have difficulties
following the Holy Spirit and feel the need to grab hold of something that
feels more solid. This leads them back to the Law of Moses which can give
them some understanding of God's will but can also lead them back into
bondage if they are not careful. I think such Christians are Paul's "weaker
bretheren" in Romans 14. Note that in that chapter, Paul does not condemn
these weaker brethern. If they feel the need to obey the letter of the law
at this stage in their walk, that's OK. Sometimes training wheels are
helpful and older, more mature Christians shouldn't trouble them. But at the
same time, we need to remember that the need to hold on to the written law
is a sign of spiritual weakness, not one of strength. Those who attempt to
use the law to lord over others are adding to the gospel and need to be
corrected before they cause others to stumble.

I hope I'm on the right track this time and have addressed your real
question. I don't think the issue of how to interpret Moses's commandment
against cross dressing is nearly as important as the issue of the
Christian's proper relationship to the entire Law. St. Paul says over and
over again that the Law is just and holy and good but that it can only
condemn us and sentence us to death. It cannot save us. Your salvation is by
grace through faith. Please don't let anyone trouble you by tacking
requirements and conditions on to the Gospel.

I don't know anyone who perfectly keeps all 613 commandments of Moses.
Trying to do so is a fool's errand. As for me, I will cling to Christ.

I hope that helps.



Please take some time to ponder the things he said. I feel there are some very important points he made at considerable cost of his time to reply to me, so please take a little time to consider what he said. I believe we can all learn somethng here.