The hidden danger of legalism

Nope, she is told not to wear man's apparel and a dress, not a skirt by certain definition, is a lady's apparel.



True ,any woman is not a lady even if she wears dresses, but a woman who wears modest dresses does have a greater chance of being treated as a lady while a woman who wears a utility belt has much a lesser chance of being treated as such.

I wonder if there is a visual shown along with the definition of a " lady "?

Mother:http://classes.yale.edu/chns130/Dictionary/

Most mothers are veiwed by thier childreen as ladies

 

And to reach a conclusion to what you've offered is to have a headless body as made up of priests.:laugh:

 

Are we to suppose you conjured up this "4 versions electronic Bible"?

 

Um, it rather has to do with the breeches being that of the preistly battle garments worn exclusively by the male.

It is NOT an issue of the ceremonial aspect of the Law, but is a moral issue which stands for anyone and everyone.

 

Negative. My bride has an 'electroonic Bible that actually, as of now, has two versions on it. She is ordering the 'software' for a third version, and can get more to put on it, according to her.

The electronic computer stuff is way over my head, and I can do exactly four things with a computer when it goes on the fritz. Turn it off, and then after it shuts down, turn it back on. If that doesn't work, turn off the power completely by throwing a switch, then turn that back on, and turn the computer on once again. Still doesn't work? Then I have to wait for my bride to fix it.

Ed

 

Let's see? Ed has an electronic Bible that has four versions on it. Amy asks where his wife got it, I asked what kind it is. Ed replies that his "Bride" has one with two versions and is getting the software to add a 3rd version.

If my math is right 2+1+( ) = 4?

 

What part of "I think that is what she told me, but I will ask again specifically, and get back to you." did you manage to miss?

Were the words too big? Or was the print too small? Should I respond with larger letters as did John Hancock for the benefit of King George?

I did respond later as to number of versions with what my bride told me, as to the actual number of versions she had and was getting. She manages to be able to count higher than "1", unlike some folks apparently, as to Bible versions.

Also how did you manage to miss that it is my bride's Bible, and not mine, and I never use it?

Yes, you are correct that Amy. G asked where my wife got it. I have PM'ed her the answer, FTR.

I do not recall you asking me what kind it is, and I checked the thread to make sure. Guess what! you did not ask this, at all. But I will answer you anyway, despite the insolence you managed to show on the post I am responding to.

Her electronic Bible is on her "Pantech Duo" phone, with the software for it available from olivetree.com.

Ed

 

Um, no.

I find no reference that these "trousers" were "battle garments" anywhere in Scripture. "Breeches" is found five times in the KJV; The word is rendered as "trousers" in the NKJV, which is the Bible I use. In every case, it is used in describing priestly garb worn during the duties of the priests at the tabernacle and temple, and it is said to be for the purpose of covering their nakedness, and were ceremonial garments to be worn only when in the actual service. In fact, they were to be worn into, but not outside, the tabernacle/temple, after their service, with multiple bathings involved, as well. (Ex. 28: 42-43; 39:28; Lev. 6:10-11; 16:1-26; Ezek. 44:11-19)

Nothing is said about these being "battle garments" in any way, in the Bible. The only 'reference' I have seen as to these being "battle garments" is made by Salamander. Nor is it said to be anything of a "moral issue", either and any priestly garments including the "trousers" were certainly not for anyone and everyone, considering only 'Jewish' males were even allowed inside the tabernacle and temple, at that time.

Now, we all can have full access by faith, based on the shed blood of he Lamb, not only to the Holy place, but also the Holy of Holies, as that veil was ripped in two parts, by God, when the Lord Jesus was crucified on Mt. Moriah. (Rom. 5:2; Heb. 10:19)

Ed

 

Maybe that's the problem!:laugh:

Suit the fancy, it was what you said that led others to believe what you WERE THINKING!

Trying to do as the archdyosis? keeping things hid in the darkness and in private interpretations/pm's?

Um, anything posted in a PUBLIC FORUM is OPEN GAMRE for DISCUSSION

And to think you HAD to say all THAT just to get to the PART which we wanted you to answer!:type:

 

Jeeeeeeeze! And just WHAT service do you think they were doing!?:laugh: Some of this stuff isn't really rocket science but to some it's very close.

For those who may have been placed temporarally into a state of suspense or confusion, the priests of the O.T. and N.T. alike, do spiritual battle as they intercede for others in the Tabernacles of life, contrary to what Ed has offered. Whther by omission or intent, he left this fact OUT.

Then anyone who wears them outside the Tabernacle isn't in service unto the Lord by your estimation.

Better go check out all the public information on this, Ed.

We call it Mt. Calvary, and Yes, you are RIGHT! we do have full access to the throne of God, but that's not exactly the subject either now is it?

Legalities of dress are a moral issue, not a ceremonial issue, nor a matter ofbeing a joint heir with Jesus and having the ability to come boldly before His Throne to intercede.

Morality has to do with sanctification, y'know, that thing that makes us different than the world and separated unto God! It also helps us maintain our witness before a lost and dying world so they might see our dedication to what we believe and Who we believe and why.

The Church has been duped into this liberal mindset for long enough. Been violated by the fasle accusers that call sanctification and separation legalism!

Return ye unto the OLD PATHS!:godisgood:

 

No, Amy.G said she did not want to derail the thread, unlike apparently some others. I was simply responding to her request. I never have asked for a PM, personally, that I can recall, nor did she.

As to what I may be thinking, perhaps reading all the PUBLIC posts I made on a thread, might clarify your own ellipses.

I offered that the "breecehes"part was not said to be "battle garments" in Scripture. I did not attempt to read any outside inferences into Scripture, on this nor do any extraneous eisegesis, either.

Ed

 

UM, EDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD! I was just interested in it! Just to clarify YOUR elipses.

When one looks up "breeches" he finds out the Biblical reference to pants: a garment worn by men originally, and never a woman until she crossed the gender distinctive line.:wavey:

If that's LEGALISM the God made the Law and you make accusation against Him.

 

Thought the following would "fit" in this discussion:

"
"And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart." Proverbs 7:10
In Proverbs 7, Solomon is warning his son about the dangers of sexual immorality. This wise and concerned father is telling his son that sin is all around, and that he must recognize it when he sees it.
One of the things he warned his son about was women dressed in the attire of an harlot. Strangely enough, it doesn't say she was a harlot, though it's obvious by her actions that she was. The interesting thing is she is described by her attire; her clothing.
One of the things that bother me as a preacher is the fact that many times I get accused of being judgmental and casting judgment on people without really knowing them or knowing all the facts. Here we see Solomon, undoubtedly the wisest man that ever lived, is judging a woman by her clothing, by looking out of his window in the dark of night! Furthermore, he's teaching his son to judge them by their clothing! Wrong? No! It is wisdom!
In my effort to convey the truth without giving anybody a reason to judge me for judging others, I'm going to do something that is perfectly fair and sensible. Instead of trying to figure out what this harlot was wearing, I'm going to turn it around. We are going to play a game of elimination in order to show what a good, godly woman should wear. The way we will do this is simple. We will try to determine what the harlot in Proverbs 7 WAS NOT wearing!
I know, many will say that I have no idea what I am talking about because we don't know for sure what harlots wore in those days. That's fine. I agree. That's why I'm going to make an application to the day and age in which we live and make this modern and practical. Everybody agrees I'm sure that the Word of God applies today, and that it's teachings and warnings should be heeded. So in saying that, let's make a couple of safe assumptions.
Assumption 1: We have harlots today. Assumption 2: Harlots wear clothes. Assumption 3: Harlots wear wrong clothes. Assumption 4: Christians should not.
How are we doing so far? In order to accurately judge what a godly, Christian woman should wear, let's examine Scripture. As I'm sure you do, I believe the Bible is the Final Authority for ALL matters of faith and practice. (That would even include our wardrobe.)
So, what did that harlot in Proverbs 7 have on? One thing we know she wasn't wearing. She wasn't wearing clothing that was modest. We can safely assume that. You see, harlotry has often been called the oldest profession in the world. That may very well be true. It certainly is not new.
Women thousands of years ago learned one simple fact. Men are affected by what they see. Men respond to what they see. The Bible has a lot to say about men's eyes. Notice this verse. Proverbs 27:20 "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied."
What about this one? Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
So you see, men are affected by what they see. Now, according to Proverbs 7:7, this young man was clearly not the sharpest kid on the block. It says: "And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding." But one thing about this guy was working perfectly normal. His eyes were fine.
Modest clothing is commanded in the word of God for godly, Christian women. It says: 1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety;..." Needless to say, the harlot in Proverbs 7 DID NOT have on modest apparel. She was dressed in a way that even in the dark of night (Bible says in the preceding verse: "In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night, she could be seen and seduce this young man.
We don't know what she was wearing, but we do know what she wasn't wearing! She wasn't wearing modest apparel.
What is modest apparel? Does anybody know? Are there any clues? Absolutely! The Greek word for 'modest apparel' in this verse is katastole (pronounced kat-as-tol-ay'). It means: a lowering, letting down; a garment let down, dress, attire - Bible Greek Lexicon
Now I don't profess to be a Greek scholar, or even a Bible scholar for that matter. However, I think it's pretty clear what women are supposed to wear according to these verses; long, loose, modest dresses.
You might say, well, how long is long? Who's to say something is long or short? That's an excellent point. That's why we must refer to our Bible for that answer. Let's see what God says.
Isaiah 47:1-3 "Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, ... O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. ... uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man."

We can see from these verses that God considers a woman uncovering her leg or her thigh to be 'nakedness'. I think we must agree that God's description of 'modest apparel' in the Bible would have to mean that whatever it is a woman wears, it must be long and cover her legs.
Having said that, we can safely conclude that the harlot in Proverbs 7 did not have on a long skirt or a long, loose flowing dress. As we said earlier, we cannot conceive the fact that if she did, Solomon would have described her as a woman dressed in the attire of an harlot.
One thing is very clear to me, as a man and as a preacher of the Gospel. Too many women and girls today are wearing the attire of an harlot. They are dressing themselves in a fashion that causes men to lust after them. They dress in a way that draws attention to their bodies. God is not pleased with that!
Dear sister in the Lord, do yourself a favor. Drive through the streets of your city late at night and look at the women standing on the street corners. Look at what they are wearing. Look at how they dress themselves. Notice what they picked out while they were shopping for clothing. Notice what they knew lustful, wicked men would be attracted to. Observe what they realized would appeal to their wicked, sinful desires. Their wardrobe includes shorts, mini-skirts, low blouses, sleeveless shirts, tight clothing, blue jeans, pants and other sinful attire. Nothing godly.
Now go home, look in your closet. What do you see? Do you see anything that even closely resembles what those women were wearing? Do you have clothing in your house that reveals your legs? Do you have skirts or dresses that are not long enough to fit the description of modest apparel? Do you by any chance have any clothing that would be too tight, too see-through, too clingy, too masculine to be worn by a godly, chaste, virtuous lady?
If so, you need to throw it out. You need to ask God to forgive you for wearing the attire of an harlot. You need to realize the awfulness of allowing the unbelievers and Hollywood and the harlots and lesbians of this world to influence your wardrobe.
Is your clothing modest? Is it feminine? Is it ladylike? Is it loose, flowing, and long? Is it a dress? God forbid that any born-again lady dress herself in the attire of an harlot.
If you have never been saved, please contact me. I'd be delighted to send you more information about what Jesus did for you and His free gift of salvation. "

Comments?

 

Um, no! When one looks up "trousers", in Scripture, one finds a linen ceremonial undergarment worn only by priests during their ministering. This particular garment was specifically prohibited to be worn by the priests, as part of their attire, even when leaving the temple/tabrnacle, after doing their ministering, as I have already posted.

There is no other mention of "trousers" anywhere in Scripture, aside from the five verses referencing this priestly garb, and "legalism", "feminism", "convention" and any other 'ism,' 'asm,' or spasm has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Ed

 

One question and one comment.

Since this is apparently a quote, how about giving proper credit to the originator of the quote?

I believe that is proper ethical, not to mention, proper BB procedure.

And I'm also fully in favor of modest attire, and for men as well as women.

OK, so I wound up with two comments.

Ed

 

Yes, Ed defines trousers and Salamanders asks him to define breeches.

 

Is there a difference?

We are speaking of Ex. 28:42, right?

And it is clothing we are speaking of here with these undergarments, or 'underclothes' correct?, You know, like in 'trunks', shorts, and underwear, since it appears one needs to define it. Maybe I should have said "sloppes," as did the second authorized English version.

My copy of the Bible says "trousers," in the five verses I previoulsy cited. The word "breeches" is not found there, hence that is why I used the term that I did.

Ed