More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I have to agree. The nastiest of spirits is often the most religious.

Bro, you are certifiable.

[Aquila]

Well, the conservatives on this topic have proven that the high priest wore breeches as part of the inner garment. The length of those breeches have been debated. They have also proven that the three Hebrews in Daniel wore trousers. The nature of those trousers have been debated.

They then make a leap of logic. They say that if the high priest wore breeches and the three Hebrews wore trousers, then every Israelite male wore trousers.

They have yet to prove that the average Israelite male wore trousers as part of their casual dress. I contend at the time Deuteronomy 22:5 was written, no Israelite, male or female, wore trousers.

From Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible, by J. I. Packer, M. C. Tenney, editors, page 484 --
"Among the Hebrews breeches were worn only by the priests. In some neighboring countries, both breeches and trousers were worn by common man."

I also contend that trousers were not even popular attire among the Jews during the time of Christ. In fact, I contend that the styles that men and women did wear were quite similar:

From Atlas of the Bible, by Reader’s Digest --
Page 16 -- "In the time of Jesus, Jews of both sexes wore a linen undergarment and a woolen tunic that covered the body from the lower neck to well below the knees. Over this was draped a cloak that served variously as topcoat, blanket, bedroll, carpet, and even as collateral for loans -- provided the borrower was allowed the used of it at night. To keep the voluminous tunic from billowing awkwardly, men and women wore belts of rope, leather, or cloth, sometimes highly decorated."

From The Lion Encyclopedia of the Bible, by Reader’s Digest, page 169 --
"The first thing a man put on was either a loincloth or a short skirt from waist to knee. This was all he wore when he was doing heavy work.
"Over the top of this came a shirt or tunic made of wool or linen. This was like a big sack; a long piece of material folded at the centre and sewn up the sides, with holes for the arms and a slit at the folded end for the head to go through. The skirt was calf-length for a man and coloured, usually red, yellow, black or striped. A woman’s tunic came down to her ankles and was often blue. Often it was embroidered on the yoke with a special pattern. Each village had it’s own traditional pattern of embroidery. Apart from these features a woman’s tunic would be very similar to a man’s.
"The tunic was fastened round the waist with a girdle or belt. This was a piece of cloth, folded into a long strip to make a kind of pocket to hold coins and other belongings.
"When a man needed to be able to move more freely, to work, he would tuck his tunic into his belt to make it much shorter. This was called ‘girding up the loins’. It meant getting ready for action. A woman could lift up the hem of her long dress and use it as a large bag, even for carrying things like corn.
"Out of doors, a rich man would wear a light coat over his tunic. This came down to his knees and was often gaily striped or woven in check patterns.
"There was also a thick woollen coat or cloak to keep out the cold, called a himation in New Testament times. This was made from two pieces of material, often in stripes of light and dark brown, stitched together. The joined material was wrapped around the body, sewn at the shoulders, and slits were then made in the side for the arms to go through.
"The shepherd lived in his. It was his blanket when he slept in the open at night. It was also thick enough to make a comfortable seat. A poor man’s cloak was so important to him that if it were handed over to guarantee repayment of a debt, it had to be returned to him at sunset."

From Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible, by J. I. Packer, M. C. Tenney, editors,
Page 480 -- "The Israelite man’s ‘inner garment’ resembled a close-fitting shirt. The most common Hebrew word for this garment (kethoneth) is translated variously as coat, robe, tunic, and garment. It was made of wool, linen or cotton. The earliest of these garments were made without sleeves and reached only to the knees. Later, the inner garment extended to the wrists and ankles.
"A man wearing only this inner garment was said to be naked (I Sam 19:24; Isa 20:2-4). The New Testament probably refers to this garment when it says Peter ‘girt his fisher’s coat unto him, (for he was naked) and did cast himself into the sea’ (John 21:7).
"The man’s girdle was a belt or band of cloth, cord, or leather 10 cm. or more wide. A fastener attached to the girdle allowed it to be loosened or tightened. The Jews used the girdle in two ways: as a tie around the waist of the inner garment or around the outer garment. When used around the inner garment, it was often called the loincloth or waistcloth. The use of a girdle increased a person’s gracefulness of appearance and prevented the long, flowing robes from interfering with daily work and movements.
"The Hebrew men wore an outer garment consisting of a square or oblong strip of cloth, 2 to 3 m. (80 to 120 in.) wide. This garment (me’yil) was called the coat, robe, or mantle. It was wrapped around the body as a protective covering, with two corners of the material being in front. The outer garment was drawn in close to the body by a girdle."

Page 482 -- "Women wore clothing that was very similar to that of men. However, the law strictly forbade a woman to wear anything that was thought to belong particularly to a man, such as the signet ring and other ornaments. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, women were also forbidden to use the weapons of a man. By the same token, men were forbidden to wear the outer robe of a woman (Deut. 22:5)."

From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 1, pp 876-878 --
"Biblical references for clothes are nearly all to the costume of the males, owing doubtless to the fact that the garment ordinarily used indoors were worn alike by men and women.
"The three normal body garments, the ones most mentioned in the Scriptures, are sadhin, a rather long ‘under garment’ provided with sleeves; kethoneth, a long-sleeved tunic worn over the sadhin, likewise a shirt with sleeves; and simlah, the cloak; and the ‘girdle’.
"The ‘loin-cloth’ was always worn next to the skin. Often it was the only ‘under garment,’ as with certain of the prophets (2 Kings 1:8; Matthew 3:4; Isaiah 20:2; Jeremiah 13:1ff). In later times it was displaced among the Hebrews by the ‘shirt’ or ‘tunic’.
"The ordinary ‘under garment’, later worn by all classes -- certain special occasions and individuals being exceptions -- was the ‘shirt’. The well-known piece of Assyrian sculpture, representing the siege and capture of Lachish by Sennacherib, shows the Jewish captives, male and female, dressed in a moderately tight garment, fitting close to the neck (Job 30:18) and reaching almost to the ankles. Probably that of the peasantry was both looser and shorter."

In New Testament times, the main item in the wardrobe was called a colobium -- a long, close-fitting tunic with openings for head and arms, woven from top to bottom, often without seams. A cloak was then wrapped over that. As in the Old Testament, the design was the same for both male and female.

Basically, although trousers were not a part of average Israelite attire, what they did wear was rather similar in design and style as it relates to men and women's dress.

Therefore, any notion the Deuteronomy 22:5 demands extreme distinction in style is error.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, you already made the judgement long ago. I'm just in the amen corner.
The sad thing is that people like you who are abusers think everyone else is an abuser. But even sadder, they go to the far left and take their old religious self with them.

How many times you called me a legalist in this thread?

Just call you Plank Eye Joe.

So, you don't believe in obeying the Law? It's a term for one who believes in keeping the Law, is it not?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, you don't believe in obeying the Law? It's a term for one who believes in keeping the Law, is it not?

Aquila these guys preach against the law, yet here they are preaching for the Law, which is exactly what Deut 22:5 is. it is kind of schizophrenic isn't it?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Aquila these guys preach against the law, yet here they are preaching for the Law, which is exactly what Deut 22:5 is. it is kind of schizophrenic isn't it?

Either Deuteronomy 22:5 is obligatory, or it is not. If it is not, then there is no reason to oppose crossdressing of any kind.

So what do YOU believe? Regardless of whether or not pants are specifically men's apparel, do you believe Deuteronomy 22:5 is obligatory, meaning that women are not to wear that which pertains to a man, and men are not to wear a woman's garment?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've experienced that the higher the standards, the less authentic the people tend to be.

I can say my experience has been the opposite.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Well, the conservatives on this topic have proven that the high priest wore breeches as part of the inner garment. The length of those breeches have been debated. They have also proven that the three Hebrews in Daniel wore trousers. The nature of those trousers have been debated.

They then make a leap of logic. They say that if the high priest wore breeches and the three Hebrews wore trousers, then every Israelite male wore trousers.

They have yet to prove that the average Israelite male wore trousers as part of their casual dress. I contend at the time Deuteronomy 22:5 was written, no Israelite, male or female, wore trousers.

Both brother Pliny and brother Benincasa have made the following argument:

Only males wore bifurcated garments (breeches) in the Bible. No godly women are recorded as wearing breeches or similar apparel. Therefore, there is no Biblical basis, authorisation, or approval for women wearing breeches or similar apparel (pants in modern lingo).

You have not refuted their argument.

You have presented myriads of anecdotes as well as historical testimony from cultures outside the Bible regarding various clothing styles and customs, but have presented no evidence from the Bible that women either should or could wear breeches or similar clothing with God's approval.

Please pay careful attention to my next statement:

It doesn't matter what my opinion or belief is concerning pants, breeches, or what constitutes men's or women's apparel. The simple and obvious fact is that you have not actually addressed the actual argument of those you have been arguing with on this thread.

Can you see that? Please try again.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know all churches aren't like this.

The above is called the disclaimer. If you follow this guy's postings he believes everyone who teaches against crossdressing is as warped as he claimed to once be.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've been to several that aren't.

A back up to the first disclaimer. These are on the same line as "I have friends who are black" it's supposed to gain credibility for what they are presenting.

Originally Posted by Aquila

But the sense of hiding imperfection was present to a lesser degree.

This is where Church is supposed to be group therapy. If you noticed Aquila equated the move of the spirit to men sharing their feelings. Their hidden sins. If you start out with no Holy Ghost in your far rightness you end up with no Holy Ghost is your far leftness. Both sides of the road have a huge ditch, and some don't drive straight down the middle. When they hit the swerve they look for those they use to fellowship to run over.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've experienced that the higher the standards, the less authentic the people tend to be.

No doubt you experienced, you personally experienced it in your own behavior as a religious fiend. Bro, it had zero to do with standards. Seriously you still boil under your soft blanket of liberal left. But like I have already stated, liberals want to see the ghetto cleaned up with people rehabilitated They just don't want them moved to their neighborhood. Your credibility is below zero. Whatever you believe about Deuteronomy 22:5 is absolutely meaningless. Because the cardboard tough guy who once waltz his wife back into the house to change her socks, is more than likely still waiting underneath your hood.

Pray through my brother.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Either Deuteronomy 22:5 is obligatory, or it is not. If it is not, then there is no reason to oppose crossdressing of any kind.

So what do YOU believe? Regardless of whether or not pants are specifically men's apparel, do you believe Deuteronomy 22:5 is obligatory, meaning that women are not to wear that which pertains to a man, and men are not to wear a woman's garment?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In New Testament times, the main item in the wardrobe was called a colobium -- a long, close-fitting tunic with openings for head and arms, woven from top to bottom, often without seams. A cloak was then wrapped over that. As in the Old Testament, the design was the same for both male and female.

Bro, excuse me, but a colobium is clergy vestments from the 3rd century. Also known as coronation robes because kings and queens were part of the ecclesia. Aquila you are learning as you go, gleaning from Google. Why do I know this because I read your postings. In one breath you make statements against Catholicism, and then offer their attire in an argument. Are commentaries infallible? No. Are they extremely useful to the student? By all means, yes! But the ingredient which is most important is research the available material. Which must be the Manuscripts in their ancient languages. Comparing them with each other to gain the correct meaning. Also knowing how these words were used during the time of the writings. You my brother, are using commentaries as if they have no flip side or contrary information. What was the agenda of the writers. Or the scholars. By no means discard them, but the microscope which must be used is the Bible itself.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Basically, although trousers were not a part of average Israelite attire, what they did wear was rather similar in design and style as it relates to men and women's dress.

Same but different? One had a blue stripe and the other had a purple stripe on the edge of the robe? The average? Notice Aquila won't go as far to say that they NEVER wore trousers. Listen, trousers were of pagan design and used in pagan rituals as Aquila has stated multiple times. Then Meshach Shadrach, and Abednego wouldn't of touched them. They would of vehemently refused as hard as they refused the pork (offered to idols) on the king's table. Jesus in Revelation 19:16 is wearing military cavalry trousers.
Commentary is fine and wonderful, but the further you go into a commentary you may find the the "scholars" end up contradicting, or leaving some things out.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Therefore, any notion the Deuteronomy 22:5 demands extreme distinction in style is error.

Note: Anyone reading Aquila's posts can save a huge amount of time by starting at the end.

Deuteronomy means mild differences? Hmm, blind leading blind both fall into big bottomless hole? No thanks.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is definitely talking about big differences because the writer is stressing MASCULINITY by using GEBER. STRONG MAN. Size 30 neck!!!!