What about shorts?

Galatians 5:12 tells us it is used by Christians
to promote brotherly love but not as a cloak. I agree that it musn't be misused by anyone but the strong should not need coercing when it comes to a decision of offending a weaker brother or not.

Murph

[ September 23, 2002, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

I guess I must have had drinking on my mind. Ha.ha.
Murph

 

I reckon you ought to always wear a hat in public then, Brazee. Some women are known to be attracted to skin-headed men.</font>[/QUOTE]Introduce me to one or two, would you ?

 

Bro...you never watch unusual talk shows like Jenny Jones do you?....full of people who are attracted to unusual things...not a bad thing just unusual.

karen

 

Hi everone!

I am new here and have been reading for some time now. I guess i could not just be on the side lines so here goes.

The idea of what is right and wrong is not ours to have feelings about. I believe the Bible will always lead us to truth if we are willing to put our self aside and listen to it.

In Mal. 3:6 we are told that God does not change and in Heb. 13:8 we are told that Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. As stated before we find God telling Adam and Eve what they covered themselves with is not enough and so He mad coats for them. Coat means to cover like a coat, garment or robe.

In Ex. 28:42 God gave the command that the priest were to cover themselves with a garment from the thigh to the loin and this was under the robe that they already had on. God said thais was to cover their nakedness. This was to cover between the knee and the trunk which is the loin or the small of the back.

Now, if God was concerned about the "nakedness of the priest" is he still not concerned about the nakededness of the priest? The Bible says we are "a royal priesthood." My bible tells me God does not change. So who has changed here God or man?

Wow, maybe got to long on the first post.

 

A great first post, Bible Student! Welcome aboard!

 

Bible Student said:

In Ex. 28:42 God gave the command that the priest were to cover themselves with a garment from the thigh to the loin and this was under the robe that they already had on. God said thais was to cover their nakedness. . . .

Now, if God was concerned about the "nakedness of the priest" is he still not concerned about the nakededness of the priest?

Indeed he is, which is why whenever I stand on a raised platform, I always make sure I have pants on so as not to shock, embarrass, or amuse by the sight of my naughty bits.

 

Thanks GrannyGumbo!

 

This is an interesting passage. I especially liked verse 40, where the priests were to wear "girdles" and "bonnets". How come the royal priesthood doesn't do this today? Who has changed, God or man?

 

I think that there is a principle here in Ex. 28:42 that I believe applied to the topic which is "wearing shorts." The principle is if God thought that the showing of the thigh to the loin was nakedness then it still is today.

Maybe some of us should wear "girdles" today, if you know what I mean.

To all of you, sorry for all the errors in the first post, I was trying to get it done before I started work.

 

Bible Student said:

The principle is if God thought that the showing of the thigh to the loin was nakedness then it still is today.

Except, of course, that "showing the thigh" is NOT the Biblical definition of "nakedness." "Nakedness" is a euphemism for one's private parts. The reason the priest had to wear thigh-length undergarments (Exod. 28:42) was the same reason the altar was not to be built with steps leading to it (Exod. 20:26): to preserve the priest's modesty by preventing others from peeking up his robe and seeing his privates.

 

Amen Ransom.

It's people not God who have added the interpretation of what to do, what to not do. But, then you probably already knew that...as did I.

 

If it was just to cover the privates then why did God call covering from the thigh to the loin the means of not showing nakeness? Could not a all powerful God just have written "cover your privates to cover your nakedness?" God never puts anything in His Word just to put it there.

 

Who questioned the power of God? It is our job to correctly interpret what he did write. If you want to equate believers today with the priests of yestermillenium, you are not correctly interpreting God's word.

[ October 04, 2002, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ]

 

Bible Student said:

If it was just to cover the privates then why did God call covering from the thigh to the loin the means of not showing nakeness?

For the same reason that a long skirt is more modest than a short skirt; if a woman is on a raised dais in a short skirt, or if a good gust blows up, she runs the risk of showing more "nakedness" than the woman in the long skirt.

Could not a all powerful God just have written "cover your privates to cover your nakedness?"

I thought he did.

 

Ransom

My point is what is nakedness? If God tells us in the Bible that to cover nakedness was to cover from the thigh (which stats at the knee) to the loin (which is the samll of the back), reguardless weather it is in the Old Testament or not it is the mind of God on what is nakedness. No interpertation need it speaks plainly and clearly. Now if we are to say that only the Old Testament priest were to be covered this way and God thinks differently today then I need scripture to prove that point.

 

Bible Student said:

My point is what is nakedness?

As used in the Old Testament, it predominantly means the private parts. When the Old Testament speaks of precautions the priests should take lest someone see their "nakedness," or the Levitical holiness code says not to "uncover the nakedness" of various female relatives, it is referring to the privates (or, metaphorically, of sexual intercourse).

If God tells us in the Bible that to cover nakedness was to cover from the thigh (which stats at the knee) to the loin (which is the samll of the back)

You are mistaken. Yes, the loin is the small of the back; however, loins refers to the pubic region - the reproductive organs. (Yes, that little change in spelling is a significant difference in anatomy.) Hence, "fruit of my loins."

reguardless weather it is in the Old Testament or not it is the mind of God on what is nakedness.

No, you are confusing the purpose of the garment with the length of the garment.

The purpose of the "breeches" (essentially thigh-length shorts) was to cover his privates and prevent him from accidentally exposing himself. It does not follow that every inch of skin covered by the "breeches" is therefore "nakedness."

Now if we are to say that only the Old Testament priest were to be covered this way and God thinks differently today then I need scripture to prove that point.

Fine. Read it in context, and you will see that it has to do specifically with the priestly garments and the performance of his duties. Since I am not a levitical priest, I need not wear thigh-length undies under my robe any more than I need wear a turban with a gold badge reading "HOLINESS TO THE LORD" on it.

 

I have to disagree. You'll find that showing the thigh to be regarded as nakedness is very consistent with scripture. The theory that nakedness is revealing "private parts" is not supported by Scripture.

I have to run now. I will add Scripture support when I return.

[ October 04, 2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

WoW! I'm getting quite an education!!

Kathy
&lt;&gt;&lt;