They did not wear kilts in the sense of Scotch kilts, (which is what I meant by "kilt",) so wearing (Scotch) kilts would not be a Hebrew thing. I think you understood that.
. . .
Scotch kilts were not something that Scotland alone developed - that was mentioned directly, as it concerns the design of kilts and how they developed. That was made plain with reference..
Don't assume what I meant unless asking for clarification, please -
It's slightly ironic to me that you invoke so much sub-categorization and small-perspective views, but then use "kilt" in a generalized sense, as though Scotch kilts and "Hebrew kilts" were the same.
As you didn't deal with nor show at any point what Hebrew dress was like - nor did you show what you felt Scotch kilts was like, it seems a bit insincere talking on anything related to categorization since sub-categorization was never somnething I mentioned SEPERATE from generalization as well (seeing how kilts in the Hebrew/Semitic sense were obviously different from Scotish in certain ways....fabric designs being obvious). No need to act as if splitting hairs is present.
The rest of your comment really just repeats the points you already raised, which do not disturb me. Catholic or Latin-American tradition varies from place to place, as with Islamic or Indic or Sinic, but it is still distinct and recognizable.
That is circular - as it has still not been shown where Islamic tradition is distinct or how that is distinct....and no one can escape its beginnings in Christian tradition which it came out of historically. So again, it's pulling the cart before the horse - where did God ever say Israel was DISTINCT in all things, from dress to building style, or that it was meant to look different and that all others for it had to push for it?
Most of the comments you made are repeats of the call for pushing for it without showing what scripture said on it and how the prophets never advocated such..
believe, as people affiliated with ancient Israel, there should be a greater attempt by Messianics to come out of Babylon and return to the ways of the Forefathers. (You may disagree, and that's okay.)
None of that deals with scripture, as it starts from the stance of what you may believe/value (which is okay/permissible) and yet ignores what the scriptural admonition already said - and thus, it can never truly be about Ancient Israel standards are assumed which were never verified in Ancient Israel. That is something many have done (Michael Rood being one prime example) in the name of coming out of Babylon even though they do the same thing in making things up.
And as God already told the Hebrews in
Jeremiah 29 to make homes/lives amongst the Babylonians and interact with the culture - just as Daniel and his friends did in Daniel 1-6 - one cannot escape the fact that claiming "We must come out of Babylon!!" goes counter to what God already said on the issue.
Scripture - if it's the standard - needs to consistently be the standard.
Just because many (eg Westernized) Muslims or Hindus may or may not revere their own cultures doesn't problematize any of the things I've said
Incorrect - as many Muslims and Hindus revere their culture but they note (counter to the over-simplistic views of others assuming its uniform) that Muslim/Hindu culture has always varied and played out differently. And thus, to assume that looking different is about not revering things would be to not have any clue on what their culture is about.
People may choose to ignore the obvious - but that is their own choice iin the matter when ignoring the sheer diversity present that was found within Israelite culture (even though uniform on many things) and the ways it was allowed (by the direction of God) to flourish as it did...and to ignore that in the name of "We need to find authentic" is as ironic as one saying "We need to find authentic black people from Hip Hop culture!!" and then ignoring each/every example presented due to how they can't find the image/stereotype they had in mind of someone with a lot of bling or who was a rap star/having baggy pants. Confirmation bias can lead to that unfortunately..
When it comes to Judaism itself, the reality is that the emphasis was always on the INTERNAL - not the EXTERNAL alone (which often shifted). It was Orthopraxis in addition to Orthodoxy - with the Orthodoxy expressed in differing ways as it concerns Orthopraxis. And thus, we have to be honest with that rather than
arguing on the basis of personal incredulity where something seems too much for us to consider - and therefore, we say "It's not true"
Of course many Hindus, even outside of India, respect and revere India and the Indic culture - just as many Messianics revere historical Israel and Israelite culture. Nonetheless, they are also honest with their own history and the ways it has shaped/evolved - just as other Messianics have seen the same with Historical Israel as well.
And it's easier, to be frank, to make excuses on why one wishes to focus more so on the externals rather than honestly deal with where the externals were NEVER set or above being changed - we often focus on making others conform outwardly to the outward behavior we deem necessary rather than living out our own faith/having it reflect who Yeshua was.
As it is, going back to the Hindu example that keeps getting brought up as a backdrop for comparing Modern-Day Messianics, people often speak stereotypicaly of what Hindu culture is like and have zero awareness of how that looks like -
both in external and internal dynamics. Unless working with others in the Diaspora of the Hindu culture, one has no basis speaking on them all having reverence via a monoform culture since it's NOT the case. One of the best reads on the issue is
Christ and the Hindu Diaspora - and just as the Hindu culture itself has reshaped itself and remained consistently Hindu at the same time, it is the same dynamic with Israelite culture - God had NO issue with them reshaping how they lived life when it came to pilgrimage, travel in other nations and Diaspora experience. The Scriptures had commandment after commandment noting how many of the laws pertaining to being WITHIN the land often transformed in the absence of the Land or being present in Israel - and within Israelite culture, there were differences in dress styles that changed over time....dress in the MONARCHY not being the same as dress during the Exodus or Babylonian exile.
The same goes for Israelite culture - Brother Contra noted it well earlier.
Israel is Israel. It's not - necessarily - a matter of sin or not sin. One can do things even though it is not soteriological.
One has to show, of course, that things are NOT soteriological if making a claim that others are not doing so...as it can often be assumed that it looking different means it's not soteriological to begin with. And that can be begging the question.
I think modern Israelites should make some kind of effort to intimate their past, and not just (in the attempt to be as different from Muslims as possible) reject their past, being the past world of David, Gideon, Joshua, Samson, Solomon, etc.
That - as said before - goes back to what you think rather than showing what the prophets and what Moses and Israelite history show. For it's making a claim without any basis of verification - every age of Israelite culture differed in dress and style on various levels - yet their heritage in the Torah/knowing who the Lord was made them distinct from the nations. It was never about rejecting their past....David didn't look the same as Daniel nor did Esther look the same as a pilgrim Patriarch like Abraham. But they all followed God.
It's generally a Gentile dynamic of understanding in saying "Ancient Israel all looked like this" and many in the Semitic world have noted how much it can be romanticizing the past in doing so when others claim "You all should do better!!" - especially when they never grew up in Semitic culture nor deal with the extensive history of others in Semitic culture who noted how it evolved as with all things.
Hehe.... well, the Kerubim are either spirits in heaven (their shapes described in Ezek. 1 and 10, and perhaps in Revelation) or not. If they are heavenly spirits (with features of bulls, lions, eagles etc) they would predate any Lammasu or Garuda conceptions found in other cultures. I tend to believe the Bible so to speak, and not just dismiss it.
None of that deals historically with the concept of Cheribum imagery predating the time of Moses - thus, one has to be consistent with the history if properly relating to the Bible since it's a false scenario thinking that one has to believe Cheribum imagery only began in scripture if one is to believe the Bible. That's like saying one can only be writing began in the Bible if they are to believe the first verse of "In the beginning...:" And it can also be a matter of trying to assert a superior position without warrant in the name of "I believe what the scriptures say!!!" (as if others didn't ) when saying one only looks to scripture while others see where Scripture was verified by history.
Cheribum were present in Egyptian culture as well as other cultures ...
Wit
h Cheribum (which began in Genesis 3 ), the Hebrew term cherubim is cognate with the Assyrian term
karabu, Akkadian term
kuribu, and Babylonian term karabu; the Assyrian term means 'great, mighty', but the Akkadian and Babylonian cognates mean 'propitious, blessed'. It is the case that in some regions the Assyro-Babylonian term came to refer in particular to spirits which served the gods, in particular to the shedu (human-headed winged bulls) - and the Assyrians sometimes referred to these as kirubu, a term grammatically related to
karabu. They were originally a version of the shedu, protective deities sometimes found as pairs of colossal statues either side of objects to be protected, such as doorways....and yet although the shedu were popular in Mesopotamia, archaeological remains from the Levant suggest that they were quite rare in the immediate vicinity of the Israelites.
For basic study on the historical development of Cheribum, one can go to
The Temple of Solomon: A Study of Semitic Culture or
Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic Study of the Biblical ...
One can also investigate the work of Dr. Michael Heiser (who is one of the leading scholars in Near-Eastern/Middle-Eastern culture)and has s
poken often of the dynamics of how Divine beings were seen in the culture -
as seen here:
Angels, Demons, Nephilim, Cherubim, and other spiritual beings- Michael S. Heiser - YouTube
before I would hold still for Roth or Bentley but here's ref. for Bentley.
