Thanks for your response. However, what word are you translating to be trousers, according to the scripture that I read. Are you referring to the word " pertaineth" translates to be the word trousers? I'm just trying to get understanding of what the scripture is saying if the wearing of pants was not present in Bible days. What garments should a woman not have wore in the OT days that pertaineth unto a man.
Deut 22:5 says:
5The 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.
The men had robes that were made for them and women had robes that were made for them. However, men and women alike wore the same garment a robe, one made for man the other for women. So therefore, they should wear what was made for each gender that I understand. There are under garments made for men and under garments made for women which are in the form of a pant with short to shorter thigh length to distinguish men and women undergarments. So men should not wear panties and women should not wear boxers or underwear for men that I understand. Ok why would that not hold the same with pants there are pants made for men and pants made for women? I'm just asking the question, seeking understanding on the issue.
Would it then be the world (of the world) that brought about the wearing of pants for men "only"? Since pants were not garments in that day. So if woman and man both wore robes in the OT days what was it that the scripture was actually talking about? I don't know and this is what I'm wanting to find out?
I don't despute as you would put it "the bottom line" of your comment. However that it getting away from my actual question. I understand about folk not keeping the Sabbath and all the other things you mentioned. However, could I get something on the background of the scripture as it is written and what it really means to me today. Please give me any scripture you may have to help me better understand why women are discouraged to wear pants.
Is there anything in the NT that ties into this topic? Just curious.
I APOLOGIZE I DID NOT Know that was the one you meant...
Pants where created for men = origin
Women wanted to wear pants to be equal, because of the womens movement so ...fashion designers started making pants (originally made for men) and instead of men's pants they cahnged the style but it's origin was still for men...
Christmas is a pagan holiday, it's roots and origin are in pagan gods and such....do we still celebrate because it's fun, or because YAH said in Jeremiah 10 "not to learn the ways of the heathen"...this means don't follow...
bottom line (again) is just because time changes does not mean we change with it...i know it's a concept you can't understand because of all the religiosity that you might posses...if our forfathers continued to obey YAH WE would not be wearing the kind of clothes that the gentiles have made for their people...
I find it interesting that for the most part all the other religions that have ancient roots have no problem with their traditional wear...black people are the only people on this earth that complain when YAH says something in his word or the teacher does...Don't you think dress changed from Abraham to JC? yet every sculpture or find from a dig depicts the Hebrews in the same traditional garb....NOTHING CHANGES...
NOW...i do understand that we are in a state of captivity (although we are waking up) so a woman wearing "modest" pants when it's cold with a dress over it is understandable...but for fashion why are we trying to be like the jones? churches adapted this mindset and that's why "the church" is in the shape it's in...you are children of the Most High and it is him you should serve....modesty...that's what it's about...you go to church and it's a fashion show...where is YAH being glorified??
I've seen sisters with pictures on their pages and men are googling all over them and they think it's ok...who do you serve? LOL...oh and i don't need to look in the NT, isn't the father's word enough? or did he need help?
Apology accepted thank you.
My dear brother my questioning has everything to do with wanting to understand what that scripture is saying and has nothing to do with religiosity. Don't be so quick to judge because of my lack of bible knowlege. Because I want to understand does not make me a religious person it makes me a person who wants to understand the principles of God in order to receive his promises.
Again nothing here has answered any of my questions concerning the scripture that I presented. But it quickly addresses points of view on everything other. My questions had nothing to do with why women wanted to wear pants for I am aware of the women's movement. My concern is getting to the point of this scripture that I totally don't know anything about or what it means to me today.
So what is the logic behind being able to wear pants underneath if it is cold. As YOU say nothing changes...so why should it be ok if it is cold? Why should the weather allow the change to wear pants....That I don't understand. Wow..
You know I really wish that I could get my questions answered but I don't think that I will. There are to many other things coming to play in this conversation other than my original questions getting answered. If you don't know the answers to my questions concerning the scripture in question that is fine.
Sorry you misunderstood what I was needing. I did not ask for you to look in the NT = New Testament. I was asking if there was other scripture in the NT that touched on this topic of wearing pants. I'm trying to get knowledge on the topic that is all.
As much as I would like to answer your latter questions (isnt the fathers word enough or did he need help), LOL ...I think I'm going to pass. I would sincerely like to get answers to my questions and not continue to be in a position to be beat down with sarcasim and judgement for the lack of knowlege.
If you are a christian = religiosity...it's nothing against you personally because i know why most of our people are in the religions they are in...so please do not take offence to it..
find out what the word Christian REALLY MEANS.. then you will see what i mean..i did not judge you...i even said you can email me..so please again understand that YAH was not soft concerning his law..the issue with the cold is common scene...the garb our forefather and mothers wore were based on their location (cold climate)...the "pants" would not be used as a fashion statement...but if that is not a good answer for that i would say wear two skirts/dresses...simple..
also, i think if you read my posts you will see that i did answer...i'll look for it but i'm sure if you read i mentioned something about the origin of the pants...sister we are in captivity, and it is very difficult to live YAH"S way here (but not imposable)...there is so much i can post as far a scriptures also but i'm tired and i have music to finish...
You know Black Hebrews do not hold the universal truth, it is a cult with a hodge podge of beliefs from many different religions including Christianity.
All I have read from you is the same dribble that most brainwashed so-called Black Hebrews spout. Just agree to disagree with folk instead of always playing the know it all kid on the play ground that nobody likes.
Please know that what works for you may work for you and your family but don't try to force your ritualistic cult on others.
And give the sisters a rest.
You said, ""Women wanted to wear pants to be equal, because of the womens movement so ...fashion designers started making pants (originally made for men) and instead of men's pants they cahnged the style but it's origin was still for men...
This is absolutely not true and a very biased opinion. Just like clothing designs change every year there are designs strickly for men and strickly for women. It is not a women's lib issue or a religious issue it is a personal choice issue. I where pants and am still 100% woman. I particularly like to be covered and warm especially in the cold weather. It is not as big a deal as you are making it.
No on wore pants in biblical days outside of the Priest which were worn for undergarments only, they wore robes which appeared to look like dresses so what were they doing? I am sure you have an answer for this that is far fetched also, so would you say that we are all in sin and disobedient including the men who wear pants today ? Keep it 100 and stop incorporating male chauvinist attitudes into something as simple as black and white. You have really went way out with this line of discussion that is really not necessary. If women wear pants so be it, let it go and learn the without Christ you do not have God, the gospel truth.
If you curse all day are you going to hell? NO, we are talking about being YAH's people and being different...as i stated before if your job said no pants you would oblige...IF you signed a mulimillion dollar contract they have "moral clauses" you break one and contract is null...why are CHRISTIAN WOMAN ALWAYS TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO BEAT THE SYSTEM...
THE SAME WAY I DON'T CONDONE MEN SAGGING THEIR PANTS...IS THE SAME WAY I TEACH ABOUT THIS...THIS IS NOT ABOUT HEAVEN OR HELL..IT'S ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE PLEASING TO YAH BASED ON ALL OF WHAT HE HAS TO SAY...ABOUT OUR LIFESTYLE...NOT JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEE A WORD OR IT DOES NOT SAY OUT RIGHT...SMH AGAIN..
WHAT'S FUNNY IS ...WOMEN WERE THE FIRST TO WEAR THE "LOWRIDERS" THEN MEN BEGAN TO SAG THEIR PANTS...NOW IT'S REVERSED BUT CHRISTIANS DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT...THEY ALLOW THESE YOUNG PEOPLE TO LIVE AS THEY PLEASE DRESS AS THEY WANT AND THINK THEY WILL SEE THE MOST HIGH....YOU SAY IT DOES NOT MATTER SO I GUESS THE SABBATH DOES NOT MATTER EVEN THOUGH THE FATHER REPEATED TO HIS PEOPLE OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE IMPORTANCE OF IT..
BUT DUE TO BEING STIFF-NECKED OUR PEOPLE ARE WORSHIPING OTHER GODS JUST AS SCRIPTURE SAID WE WOULD (WELL I'M NOT ANYMORE). KEEP TRYING TO BEAT THE SYSTEM INSTEAD OF GOING WITH IT...NUFF SAID...I'M TIRED OF ALL THIS FALSE TEACHING..
I bow out gracefully. May God Continue to Bless All!
First sister don't twist what i said, in no place in my post did i say lowriders were sagging? DID I SAY THAT? NO I DID NOT...
MEN DID NOT WEAR THEIR SAGING PANTS AS BAD AS NOW WHEN LOWRIDERS FIRST CAME OUT...AND I KNOW THAT SAGGING CAME FROM PRISON (WHY WOULD YOU THINK YOUR THE ONLY ONE WHO KNOWS THAT) ...MANY MEN HAVE COME OUT OF PRISON GAY, AND THEY BEGAN TO PROGECT THAT LIFESTYLE IN THE COMMUNITY...AS WOMEN BEGAN WEARING WEARING THEIR LOWRIDERS AND SHOWING THEIR CRACKS THE MEN BEGAN TO SAG THEIR PANTS MORE AND MORE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN... YOUR SCHOLLING NO ONE SISTER...
IGNORANCE? SISTER IT SEEMS THAT IT IS YOU THAT IS IGNORCANT AND ARROGANT...HAVE I ATTACKED YOU AT ALL? but yet you hvae the nerve to call yourself an Evang? my savior is YAH the Elohim of Abraham Issac and jacob....you do not want to talk about your false christ because scripture will bury him and HE and his teachings will bury you because i'm sure you do not even follow what he said...
BUT i KNOW WHAT THE MOST HIGH YAH SAID WHICH IS SOMETHING YOU CAN NEVER CLAIM TO TRULEY KNOW ABOUT YOUR FALSE SAVIOR JC..AND THAT IS THIS...
YAH HAS SAID WHO WILL SIT ON THE THRONE, WHO HIS SON IS...WORD FOR WORD...YOU CANNOT SAY THAT ABOUT YOUR "GOD"...HE NEVER SAID HE WAS DEITY...DO YOU KEEP THE SABBATH (THE 7TH DAY?), I BET YOU DON'T BUT HE NEVER DID AWAY WITH THAT...HE NEVER SAID TAKE ME AS YOUR SAVIOR BUT I CAN SITE VERSE AFTER VERSE WHERE OUT OF THE MOUTH OF YAH THAT HE SAYS HE IS SAVIOR NOT JC...SO IF YOU WANT TO REALLY TALK ABOUT EDUCATION LET'S GO...CAUSE THE SCRIPTURES WILL SHOW WHO THE TRUE ELOHIM IS..
LEARN THE SCRIPTURES DON'T GUESS..