Dear Pentecostals/Assemblies of God

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,749
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,553.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1 Corinthians 4:6

Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
 
Upvote 0

4x4toy

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
3,599
1,773
✟116,025.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I have a Question. Ive been debating weather or not i should wear only skirts/Dresses, but then i saw this... Whats your take on this? I think its very interesting:

Interesting read:
Question Number One: Is it doctrinally wrong, and therefore unscriptural, for a woman to wear pants?

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. [Deuteronomy 22:5]

This single verse is almost the entirety of the scriptural argument against a woman wearing pants. If not the entirety of the scriptural case, then certainly the bulk and the cornerstone. This is inevitably true because this command is nowhere repeated in Scripture and certainly not in the New Testament; it stands by itself. Although every Bible verse is true (as is this one), certainly one verse is a very shaky foundation for such a "critical" doctrine, especially one that makes a church a "real" Independent Baptist church. Why aren't there 10 or 50 or even 100 references to point to, like there are for eternal security? The fact is we do not stand so strongly on any other single verse in the Bible, when that verse bears no other scriptural support, especially New Testament scriptural support. Only cults do this (see baptism of the dead in 1 Cor 15:29 as used by the Mormons). Deuteronomy 22:5 literally stands alone as the beginning and ending of the "women should not wear pants" argument.

Knowing this, the inference is made by some today that pants are clothes for men only and hence for a woman to wear them makes her an abomination unto the Lord. Is a woman that wears a pair of pants, regardless of the level of her spiritual maturity or the closeness of her walk with the Lord, automatically and unequivocally an "abomination unto the Lord"? Let's examine what the Bible says.

Notice the word "pertaineth" in Deuteronomy 22:5. What does pertaineth mean? It is critical because understanding this word will help us determine what God says a woman shall not wear.

Listed are the first seven Bible references to the word pertain or one of its variants, excluding our study text.

But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. [Leviticus 7:20]

- This seems to have the meaning of belonging or property.

Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the LORD, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. [Leviticus 7:21]

- This has the same meaning.

This is the law of him in whom is the plague of leprosy, whose hand is not able to get that which pertaineth to his cleansing. [Leviticus 14:32]

- This seems have the meaning "is necessary for."

And to the office of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest pertaineth the oil for the light, and the sweet incense, and the daily meat offering, and the anointing oil, and the oversight of all the tabernacle, and of all that therein is, in the sanctuary, and in the vessels thereof. [Numbers 4:16]

- This seems to agree with the first two mentions.

Notice that each time the word is mentioned it is used in conjunction with the word "to" or "unto," thereby specifying ownership. In fact, in each case you will notice that the ownership is definite and exclusive. That which "pertained" to the Lord certainly didn't "pertain" to anyone else. And Phinehas' hill didn't "pertain" to anyone else either, as he was the owner.

And there came an angel of the LORD, and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abi-ezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites. [Judges 6:11]

This oak was on the property which belonged to (pertained unto) Joash the Abi-ezrite.

So, our word "pertain," defined Biblically, means "to be the exclusive property of or belong solely to." Let's see what the Webster's 1828 Dictionary says...

PERTAIN, v.i. 1. To belong; to be the property, right or duty of.

Pretty accurate I would say. Isn't the Bible amazing?

So, we can conclude expressly that what God said and meant in Deuteronomy 22:5 is that a woman should not wear that which is the exclusive property of or belongs solely to a man.

That brings up an interesting dilemma. Are pants the "exclusive" property of men?

Let's see what the Bible says.

A search for the word "pants" or "pantaloons" (of which pants is a shortened form) turns up no references. Trousers (or trowsers) also turns up no references.

Hence, the appeal is made to the word "breeches." Breeches is found in the Bible as an article of clothing five times. Let's examine them.

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. [Exodus 28:42-43]

And they made coats of fine linen of woven work for Aaron, and for his sons, 28 And a mitre of fine linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen, [Exodus 39:27-28]

And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. [Leviticus 6:10]

He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on. [Leviticus 16:4]

They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat. [Ezekiel 44:18]

The argument goes something like this..."Seeeeee, they are only for men."

Noooooo, they are only for priests.

"But, the priests were always men."

True, but normal men are never, ever, not even once mentioned in the Bible as wearing breeches. These were not men's clothes at all, they were priestly garments. Therefore, these garments do not "pertain to" (are not the exclusive property of) men, but rather "pertain to" (or are the exclusive property of) priests. This is called letting God give His interpretation, instead of using any pet "private interpretation." This is what the Bible says. This is otherwise known as truth. That still small voice is God speaking. I wonder how many are actually listening?

The garments also had several specific characteristics. (See the verses above.)

1) They were holy garments. (Normal men did not wear holy garments.)

2) They were to prevent, or collect, sweat.

3) They were worn "upon his flesh." In other words, they were worn over nothing. They were the first garment put on and closest to the skin.

4) They were to cover the nakedness.

5) Lastly, let's see the length of these "breeches." They were from the loins even unto the thighs. They ran from the waist down through the thighs. (They had to cover the thigh to cover the nakedness.)

Have you realized yet what these breeches really were? They were underwear! They were never an external garment to be seen by anyone. Breeches, by a strict Biblical definition, are underwear. Anyone looking at this honestly, for the truth, will have to admit this.

It is OK for a female to wear pants in a feminine way , men wore robes and Exodus 20:26 say to not build steps to an alter or some one may see up your robe ..
 
Upvote 0

KawaiiChristianGal

Active Member
Oct 3, 2016
169
71
34
At home
✟880.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Ah No it is not. It is from Holiness Church Tradition!!!!
Not really... it's from Scripture! Besides I am not a part of the UPCI Church! I keep getting lumped in with them ICK!!!
Ameno whatever that means to legalism? Again it's not "Legalism" its Scripture!
So, do I with proper exegesis, not reading into the Bible like many Oneness and Word of Faith groups do.
Like many "Oneness and Word of Faith groups"??? I don't know how to take this... We read the Bible and we take it for what is says, we don't add to the Bible nor do we subtract from the Bible!
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"It is from Holiness Church Tradition!!!!"
Not really... it's from Scripture! Besides I am not a part of the UPCI Church! I keep getting lumped in with them ICK!!!
There are MANY denominations in the Holiness tradition - Church of the Nazarene, Free Methodist, Wesleyan Methodist, Assembly of God, Church of God (both Anderson IN and Cleveland TN), Holiness Pentecostal and Full Gospel Assembly. United Pentecostal are much more reactionary (almost like Full Gospel Assembly) but are heretics in their modalist theology. No one here is saying you are from UPCI.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We read the Bible and we take it for what it says, we don't add to the Bible nor do we subtract from the Bible!
Ah - the illusion of Sola Scriptura. What you are suggesting is impossible. "Taking it for what it says" can only work if you are fluent in the original language, world view and culture of both the author and the original audience. Otherwise you are derailed by your own word definitions, your cultural assumptions and your world view biases.

For instance, one of the verses used to support your position is this:

Deuteronomy 22:5 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.

Culture would tell us that dresses are women's clothes and pants are men's clothes. But the text DOES NOT SAY THAT. Neither style of garment existed at that time. Indeed, this scripture applied to both men and women, and note it is only 7 verses later:

Deuteronomy 22:12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

Most translations render "quarters" as corners. Do dresses have four corners? Do pants? No. So the garments all had four corners. (like a sheet)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KawaiiChristianGal

Active Member
Oct 3, 2016
169
71
34
At home
✟880.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Ah - the illusion of Sola Scriptura. What you are suggesting is impossible. "Taking it for what it says" can only work if you are fluent in the original language, world view and culture of both the author and the original audience. Otherwise you are derailed by your own word definitions, your cultural assumptions and your world view biases.

For instance, one of the verses used to support your position is this:

Deuteronomy 22:5 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.

Culture would tell us that dresses are women's clothes and pants are men's clothes. But the text DOES NOT SAY THAT. Neither style of garment existed at that time. Indeed, this scripture applied to both men and women, and note it is only 7 verses later:

Deuteronomy 22:12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

Most translations render "quarters" as corners. Do dresses have four corners? Do pants? No. So the garments all had four corners. (like a sheet)

Yes but you're trying to say it was meant for back then whereas I say it's meant forever, God would not want any man dressing as a woman should, not would he want a woman dressing as a man should.

The Bible is living...
 
Upvote 0

KawaiiChristianGal

Active Member
Oct 3, 2016
169
71
34
At home
✟880.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
There are MANY denominations in the Holiness tradition - Church of the Nazarene, Free Methodist, Wesleyan Methodist, Assembly of God, Church of God (both Anderson IN and Cleveland TN), Holiness Pentecostal and Full Gospel Assembly. United Pentecostal are much more reactionary (almost like Full Gospel Assembly) but are heretics in their modalist theology. No one here is saying you are from UPCI.

I would not call them heretics, I'm not a heresy hunter.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes but you're trying to say it was meant for back then whereas I say it's meant forever, God would not want any man dressing as a woman should, not would he want a woman dressing as a man should.
No - you are not hearing what I am saying. The prohibition of cross dressing remains. But it has nothing to do with any specific type of garment. back in that day the garments were structurally the same - rectangular sheets of cloth. What made them different was the decoration on the cloth and the way it was wrapped around the body.

As to how that relates to our modern US culture, there are female-cut pants that I would not wear and no woman should be wearing a male-cut pants. And you can look at a somewhat different culture (Scotland) and find men wearing something that LOOKS like a skirt (Kilt) but is understood to be a male garment.

The whole point was to not confuse someone into thinking a man was a woman or vice versa.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LaSorcia
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,749
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,553.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Everywhere you claim the bible teaches you not to wear pants. Pants did not exist in the Biblical World.
Loose fitting pants are not a temptation to us guys whereas, a tight dress is. It is not what you wear, it is how you wear it. A two piece or one piece swim suit can be modest. It is the band aids that are the problem.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,749
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,553.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Actually they are. They deny the Trinity.

It is hear say that they are works based salvation, but legalism is there from talking to them. I would love to read their books, but for some reason they do not give any away printed copies for free.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It is hear say that they are works based salvation, but legalism is there from talking to them. I would love to read their books, but for some reason they do not give any away printed copies for free.
Since about 1980, the largest congregation in my small home town is a UPC church. My sister married into a family from that group and their sister congregation in the next town. I have worked with members of there so I am familiar with their doctrines and practices.

My best friend from high school is a pastor in the Disciples of Christ denom. (originally ordained Reform Church of America) His opinion is "they would be heretics but they aren't that smart." Officially, from their doctrinal statements, they are heretics.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,749
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,553.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There are MANY denominations in the Holiness tradition - Church of the Nazarene, Free Methodist, Wesleyan Methodist, Assembly of God, Church of God (both Anderson IN and Cleveland TN), Holiness Pentecostal and Full Gospel Assembly. United Pentecostal are much more reactionary (almost like Full Gospel Assembly) but are heretics in their modalist theology. No one here is saying you are from UPCI.

Before the Holiness tradition, movement no one taught the no pants thing. The earliest writings on not wearing pants is in the many writings of Holiness movement. It is only later that this teaching migrated outside that tradition.

It is traced back to John Wesley, http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.php?id=4704
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,749
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,553.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Let me begin with תוֹעֵבָ֥ה (tô`eba) in Deuteronomy. The noun occurs 117 times in the Old Testament and it is generally translated as “abomination.” The word is used to describe a sinful act on the part of Israel or an individual Israelite. The word appears several times in Ezekiel to describe an action that is cultically unacceptable.

In the book of Deuteronomy, the word tô`eba becomes almost a technical word that is used to describe pagan practices that are abhorrent to Yahweh. A few examples will suffice:

“When you come into the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations” (Deuteronomy 18:9).

“There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD; and because of these abominable practices the LORD your God is driving them out before you” (Deuteronomy 18:10-12).

“You shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 20:17-18).

“You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog, into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow; for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 23:18).

I could cite several other passages in Deuteronomy where the word “abomination” is used as a reference to a religious practice that existed in the religion of the Canaanites and several other nations in the Ancient Near East. The last quotation above, Deuteronomy 23:18, forbids an Israelite to “bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog, into the house of the LORD” as a payment for a vow. Such an act was an abomination to the LORD.

The reference here is to the offering in the temple of the Lord of the wages received by the “harlots and the dogs,” that is, the female and male cultic prostitutes who offered themselves in the worship of Baal. Note the order of the words: the female is referred to first, then the male. This same order is also found in Deuteronomy 22:5: first the woman then the man (see below).

This is the reason Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits Israelites from wearing garments of the opposite sex because these were the special garments female and male cultic prostitutes wore in the service of Asherah (cf. 2 Kings 10:22; 23:7).

Archaeology has shown that the exchange of roles in pagan cults, that is, where male acted as female and vice-versa, was common in the Ancient Near East. A few quotes will suffice to prove this assertion:

Abraham Malamat, in his article “A Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Mari Documents,” published in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East, edited by Frederick E. Greenspahn (New York: New Yourk University Press, 1991), p. 159, discusses the role of the assinnus. According to Malamat, the assinnu was “a male prostitute.” Malamat said that this cultic functionary “served in the temple at Mari and prophesied in the name of the goddess Annunitum, apparently while disguised and acting like a woman, perhaps like a modern-day transvestite.”

In a review of Louis Crompton’s Homosexuality and Civilization (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2006) published in The Yale Review of Books 7, vol. 2 (Spring 2004), Margaret Fox wrote:

Crompton quotes the King James translation of a verse from the Holiness Code in Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Crompton speculates that Levitical hostility toward homosexuality arose from the desire to keep the worship of Yahweh distinct from the cultic practices of other cultures in the Ancient Near East, in which transvestite priests often played religious roles.

Theodore Burgh, in his book Listening to the Artifacts: Music Culture in Palestine said (p. 69) that in ancient Mesopotamia, transvestites, men dressed like women, played and danced in the cult of Ishtar, performing erotic dances and pantomime.

Cyrus Gordon, in his book The Bible and the Ancient Near East (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1997), p. 160, wrote:

Another biblical law that now can be explained through recourse to the Ugaritic texts is the prohibition against transvestism in Deuteronomy 22:5. This act is described in the Epic of Aqhat as well. After the hero is slain, his sister Pughat seeks revenge against Anat for the murder. To do so, Pughat disguises herself as a male, replete with rouge (the coloration of males, especially warrior heroes), man’s clothing and weaponry. The Israelite reaction is to forbid transvestism, another aspect of Canaanite society that they found reprehensible. Again, one needs to place this in its proper context. No doubt the average Canaanite male or female dressed in proper fashion throughout most his or her life. But since Canaanite epic literature describes transvestism in a noble manner, we may conclude that this act not only was practiced but also was countenanced. A close reading of the biblical prohibition reveals that the female is referred to first then the male follows. This runs counter to most laws in the Pentateuch, which either are addressed to male solely, or are addressed to male first and female second. This is not coincidental; rather it suggests an even closer connection with Pughat’s action detailed in the Epic of Aqhat.

The temple functionaries known in Canaanite literature as qedēšim and qedēšot were male and female cultic prostitutes who engaged in sexual acts in the Canaanite cult in order to elicit rain and fertility from their gods. In his religious reforms, Josiah, king of Judah, “broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes which were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah” (2 Kings 23:7).

The Biblical text is very clear: the qedēšim and the qedēšot, the male and female prostitutes were inside the Lord’s house in Jerusalem and there the women wove hangings for the Asherah. This type of ritual drama that took place in the temple was unacceptable to the Israelites. This is the reason the Israelites rejected inappropriate behavior with animals, homosexualism, transvestism, and temple prostitution and declared these practices to be an abomination to God.

The Biblical text was not written in a vacuum. The Biblical text was written within a historical and cultural context. When the Biblical text is divorced of its cultural and historical contexts, as Brother Brandenburg has done in his study of Deuteronomy 22:5, the text is made to say that which it never intended to say.

Brother Brandenburg wrote: “Our country practiced the pants as male dress and th

https://claudemariottini.com/2009/08/25/women-pants-and-deuteronomy-225-part-2/
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,749
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,553.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus as the Good Shepard in early Christian Art,

The-Good-Shepherd-Catacomb-of-Callixtus-mid-3rd-century.jpg


Looks like a dress to me. Did Jesus violate your understanding of Deut 22:5?

Did Jesus Wear a Dress?
https://pursiful.com/2009/06/24/did-jesus-wear-a-dress/
 
Upvote 0