More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

First your wife's Jewish upbringing is separated from Biblical Israelism by about 2,000 years. I don't know what kind of "Jew" she or her people may have been, but actually Judaism today, modern Judaism is as Biblical as Heaven's Gate Cult and Marshall Herff Applewhite, Jr. It has about as much to do with the Bible as the Book of Mormon. They use the tradition of the elders
which were rebuked by Jesus, Matthew 15:1-20. They had a total overhaul from the days of Rabbi Akiba to the Medieval times where your buddy Rambam and before that Rashi really turned up the volume. So, close to everything they do has been blended through their Medieval filters and Mysticism. Nude mikvah? John was performing Mikvahs, we have nothing concerning a crowd of nudists marching towards the Jordan. Nude swimming? Martha, Mary, Jesus, and Lazarus wading around nude? Sure makes the whole thing about Romans stripping a victim bare and nailing them to an open shame have sort of a different meaning. The Crucified man in the loin cloth which hung on the wall of the Roman Church was crafted for modesty. The real crucified victims were totally naked, put to an open shame. If these desert hillbillies were rising up to play NAKED. I guess God and Moses got upset for nothing? Adam? What was he hiding for? What's up with the fig leaf belt for he and his wife only covering the reproductive organs? Naked for the fisherman was his undergarments, his fisher's coat was the outer apparel.

Jesus help you sweetly but help me even more.

Good GOD from ZION!

I was just sharing my understanding. They might have had embroidered baptismal robes out in the wilderness where John Baptized and at the Temple mikveh pools. Regardless, it really doesn't matter to me if they stripped down nude, or only their inner garment (which is still considered nude in some contexts), or went into the water in their full layered attire. And all homes could have had a complete plumbing systems with private baths. Besides, they'd need wash machines to wash all those Livies jeans. Anything to keep our conservative friends sensitivities from being upset.

[Pliny]

Here is a copy of a post with my commentary on what Aquila has been doing.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have one Scripture with a meaning that is debated by scholars.

Originally Posted by Pliny

So according to this argument there can be no such thing as truth because there is no 100% consensus on anything. For example, Acts 2:38 is debated by Trinitarian scholars as a person being baptized because of remission of sins rather than for the remission of sins. Therefore, based on this argument, baptism in Jesus' name for the remission of sins cannot be trusted.

In fact, many scientists, archaeologists, anthropologists and other highly educated people would argue the entire Bible is a fictionalized story. Thus, based on this argument, the entire Bible must be thrown out because someone debates its authenticity.

Just because someone debates an issue is not cause to ignore it. Jesus argued for educating ourselves (Jn. 5:39). Paul said to hunt for holiness (Heb. 12:4). consider this a moment. What does it mean to hunt? I believe in Paul's mind he meant to track down, to look for signs and follow those signs chasing after holiness.

Aquila does just the opposite. He chases after carnality. This is seen in defining holiness through pagan cultures rather than the Bible. For example, the reliance upon American Indians, Muslims, Eskimo's, Romans etc.

As for me and my house, we will hunt for holiness in our personal lives and attire. In other words, we will base our lives on the timeless principles found ion the word of God, not pagan culture. One of these principles is the fact that godly men wore pants. Godly women did NOT.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have the example of the high priest being commanded to wear breeches as part of his inner garment.

You have a second example of three captives who were not even in Israel, but who were in Babylon, under assimilation. They even had Babylonian names. And I assure you, Babylonian attire.

Both of your examples are lifted out of context, separated by a thousand years, and you believe these verses are enough to prove men wore Levis in ancient Israel.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Here is another false claim. Neither examples have been lifted out of context. It has been said multiple times God demanded that the Levites wear bifurcated garments. This is absolutely true. In fact, at one time you tried to say it was a command specifically for the Levites alone. That was proven wrong by asking the simple question of where. Where in the text provided does it restrict other men from wearing them? Aquila agreed he was wrong.

As to the comment concerning the assimilation of the Hebrew young men, I have to ask really? Do you understand what the word assimilation means? According to Dictionary.com, assimilation means: the state or condition of being assimilated, or of being absorbed into something.

Does rejecting the king's meat to remain pure sound like they were absorbed into Babylonian culture? Apparently you must think so because this is your argument.
Does refusing to bow to an image sound like they had been absorbed into Babylonian culture? Apparently you must think so because, once again, this is your argument.

I believe anyone with any level of critical thinking skill can see the fallacy and absurd nature of this argument. The truth is these young men stood firm against anything that would violate God's law. Guess what? They recognized that they could wear pants and not violate God's law.

So once again please demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants. You can't because they never did. Thus we see a timeless principle: godly men wore pants and godly women did not.

Originally Posted by Aquila

That my friend is not only shoddy evidence and lazy scholarship, it is dishonest. I challenge the reader to look up standard attire of the average man and woman in ancient Israel. They will find no evidence for pants becoming common attire in Judea until after the fall of Rome (which classified cultures wearing pants as barbarian).

Originally Posted by Pliny

You have the audacity to claim "shoddy evidence and lazy scholarship"? To call it dishonest? really?
Aquila has claimed that the Levitical bifurcated garments were specifically for the Levites. This is patently false because nowhere does the text restrict other men from wearing them.
Aquila has argued that the Hebrew young men were assimilated into Babylonian culture, that is why they wore pants. This, as demonstrated above, is also patently false.
Aquila has used Native American Indian culture to substantiate his "claims" as well as many other cultures. Talk about shoddy evidence and lazy scholarship! Since when does pagan culture trump the Bible?
Aquila goes on to ask the reader to " look up standard attire of the average man and woman in ancient Israel". This is dishonest and lazy because it implies that the Levites and the three Hebrew young men were not ancient Jews. How absurd is that?!?!
Aquila then tries to prove his point by appealing to popularity. Whether pants were adopted and made popular is not the question. Thus, this is a Red Herring fallacy. Pants may or may not have been popular in ancient Israel. The fact and the point of discussion is who wore pants in ancient Israel? The answer is singularly one - ancient godly Israelite men wore pants. Godly women did not.

The shoddy evidence and lazy dishonest scholarship" is one-sided and it is not EB.

Originally Posted by Aquila

As for all you insults, I forgive you. The truth is, you have an entire religious practice based on so many legalistic errors, you've been conformed into the image of those errors...and not Christ Himself. So, one should expect such things when engaged in conversation with such people. I pray that you find the peace that surpasses all understanding and the grace that leads to truth. Not just a marginal little doctrinal interpretation supported by the circular logic of legalists, but Truth. When you do, I have no doubt that you'll see the man that you are now in a far different light.

God bless and keep you and yours.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Note: Aquila tries to take the "moral high ground" by saying "I forgive you"? Yet, Aquila did not apologize for calling others "idiot's" among other things. Then, Aquila launches into another attack.

The truth is based on the Bible. I have not seen any Bible evidence from Aquila. Just the opposite. I have seen, as demonstrated above, Aquila kicking against and fighting against the truth. The truth is ancient godly Jewish men wore pants. Ancient godly Jewish women did not.




Now, once again, I ask for someone to demonstrate where a single godly woman wore pants.
The silence has been deafening...

This is post number 667

[Esaias]

Well, it's been thoroughly established that according to the Bible, the only people to wear breeches, trousers, pants etc were males.

This should be sufficient to say that breeches, trousers, pants are men's apparel according to the Bible. And since the Bible is the record of Divine Revelation, and since there is no other authoritative record of Divine Revelation besides the Bible, it follows that the Biblical record on any particular subject is the Divine Revelation on that subject.

Which means that God has indeed given His opinion concerning whether or not pants, breeches, trousers, etc are "men's apparel", does it not? It doesn't matter what the Comanches, Eskimos, Arabs, Punjabis, Scotts, Irish, Goths, or Han Chinese did, felt, thought, believed, or practiced. So far, we have God revealing His opinion on the subject of pants, trousers, and breeches. And the record of that opinion is that only men wore them, thus making them men's apparel per the Bible.

Anyone who wishes to demonstrate that women's pants are sanctioned by Scripture, may do so now. Please remember however that data outside the Bible is irrelevent unless it helps explain or demonstrate something already in the Bible. Medo-Persian women dressing like men and riding horses like their husbands does not shed light on the Biblical data. Foreign, nonbiblical definitions of gender specific apparel does not determine what the biblical definitions or examples of gender specific apparel are.

So, if you believe women's pants are Biblically authorised, you would need to show that women's pants are biblically authorised. Or show that women in the Bible wore pants. And that God did not disapprove of them doing so.

The only other option is to demonstrate a different hermeneutic that is Biblical and consistent, and which would lead to the conclusion that women's pants are indeed allowed, but for some reason I haven't seen any evidence that the pro-women's pants crowd has a clue how to do that.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, it's been thoroughly established that according to the Bible, the only people to wear breeches, trousers, pants etc were males.

Yes, the Livites wore breeches. There is no evidence that trousers were worn by the average Israelite, male or female. In fact, archaeological evidence and history supports that trousers were never worn as common attire by males or females in ancient Israel. Trousers are only mentioned once as an attire in relation to the Jews of the Babylonian captivity, Babylon being known to have had trousers as part of common attire.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes, the Livites wore breeches. There is no evidence that trousers were worn by the average Israelite, male or female. Trousers are only mentioned once as an attire in relation to the Jews of the Babylonian captivity, Babylon being known to have had trousers as part of common attire.

The argument being made is not that "trousers were worn by the average Israelite". Proving that trousers were not worn by the average Israelite proves nothing in this discussion, that's the point you are refusing to notice.

The three Hebrew boys in Babylon has already been addressed, it has been shown that it is unlikely they were wearing Babylonian attire, on the basis of their previous stand against Babylonian food and their then-current stand against Babylonian idolatry.

So, once again:

Well, it's been thoroughly established that according to the Bible, the only people to wear breeches, trousers, pants etc were males.

This should be sufficient to say that breeches, trousers, pants are men's apparel according to the Bible. And since the Bible is the record of Divine Revelation, and since there is no other authoritative record of Divine Revelation besides the Bible, it follows that the Biblical record on any particular subject is the Divine Revelation on that subject.

Which means that God has indeed given His opinion concerning whether or not pants, breeches, trousers, etc are "men's apparel", does it not? It doesn't matter what the Comanches, Eskimos, Arabs, Punjabis, Scotts, Irish, Goths, or Han Chinese did, felt, thought, believed, or practiced. So far, we have God revealing His opinion on the subject of pants, trousers, and breeches. And the record of that opinion is that only men wore them, thus making them men's apparel per the Bible.

Anyone who wishes to demonstrate that women's pants are sanctioned by Scripture, may do so now. Please remember however that data outside the Bible is irrelevent unless it helps explain or demonstrate something already in the Bible. Medo-Persian women dressing like men and riding horses like their husbands does not shed light on the Biblical data. Foreign, nonbiblical definitions of gender specific apparel does not determine what the biblical definitions or examples of gender specific apparel are.

So, if you believe women's pants are Biblically authorised, you would need to show that women's pants are biblically authorised. Or show that women in the Bible wore pants. And that God did not disapprove of them doing so.

The only other option is to demonstrate a different hermeneutic that is Biblical and consistent, and which would lead to the conclusion that women's pants are indeed allowed, but for some reason I haven't seen any evidence that the pro-women's pants crowd has a clue how to do that.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I was just sharing my understanding. They might have had embroidered baptismal robes out in the wilderness where John Baptized and at the Temple mikveh pools. Regardless, it really doesn't matter to me if they stripped down nude, or only their inner garment (which is still considered nude in some contexts), or went into the water in their full layered attire. And all homes could have had a complete plumbing systems with private baths. Besides, they'd need wash machines to wash all those Livies jeans. Anything to keep our conservative friends sensitivities from being upset.

You weren't just sharing your thoughts.



Biblical accuracy really doesn't matter to you in the grand scheme of things.
It isn't about the Bible, it isn't about the Bible languages, or how these ancient bedouins dressed, or if their women were walking stark naked through the court of the women. Or if they were wearing Yoga pants under their Hotel robes. No, you weren't sharing. If it didn't matter to you as you just posted, then why did you post it? Bro, you tried conservative, you are trying out far left, the way you are going you might end up with Sam Harris.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The argument being made is not that "trousers were worn by the average Israelite". Proving that trousers were not worn by the average Israelite proves nothing in this discussion, that's the point you are refusing to notice.

The three Hebrew boys in Babylon has already been addressed, it has been shown that it is unlikely they were wearing Babylonian attire, on the basis of their previous stand against Babylonian food and their then-current stand against Babylonian idolatry.

So, once again:

Well, it's been thoroughly established that according to the Bible, the only people to wear breeches, trousers, pants etc were males.

This should be sufficient to say that breeches, trousers, pants are men's apparel according to the Bible. And since the Bible is the record of Divine Revelation, and since there is no other authoritative record of Divine Revelation besides the Bible, it follows that the Biblical record on any particular subject is the Divine Revelation on that subject.

Which means that God has indeed given His opinion concerning whether or not pants, breeches, trousers, etc are "men's apparel", does it not? It doesn't matter what the Comanches, Eskimos, Arabs, Punjabis, Scotts, Irish, Goths, or Han Chinese did, felt, thought, believed, or practiced. So far, we have God revealing His opinion on the subject of pants, trousers, and breeches. And the record of that opinion is that only men wore them, thus making them men's apparel per the Bible.

Anyone who wishes to demonstrate that women's pants are sanctioned by Scripture, may do so now. Please remember however that data outside the Bible is irrelevent unless it helps explain or demonstrate something already in the Bible. Medo-Persian women dressing like men and riding horses like their husbands does not shed light on the Biblical data. Foreign, nonbiblical definitions of gender specific apparel does not determine what the biblical definitions or examples of gender specific apparel are.

So, if you believe women's pants are Biblically authorised, you would need to show that women's pants are biblically authorised. Or show that women in the Bible wore pants. And that God did not disapprove of them doing so.

The only other option is to demonstrate a different hermeneutic that is Biblical and consistent, and which would lead to the conclusion that women's pants are indeed allowed, but for some reason I haven't seen any evidence that the pro-women's pants crowd has a clue how to do that.

Bro, your Kung Fu is very good!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Here is a copy of a post with my commentary on what Aquila has been doing. This is post number 667

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The argument being made is not that "trousers were worn by the average Israelite". Proving that trousers were not worn by the average Israelite proves nothing in this discussion, that's the point you are refusing to notice.

The three Hebrew boys in Babylon has already been addressed, it has been shown that it is unlikely they were wearing Babylonian attire, on the basis of their previous stand against Babylonian food and their then-current stand against Babylonian idolatry.

So, once again:

Well, it's been thoroughly established that according to the Bible, the only people to wear breeches, trousers, pants etc were males.

This should be sufficient to say that breeches, trousers, pants are men's apparel according to the Bible. And since the Bible is the record of Divine Revelation, and since there is no other authoritative record of Divine Revelation besides the Bible, it follows that the Biblical record on any particular subject is the Divine Revelation on that subject.

Which means that God has indeed given His opinion concerning whether or not pants, breeches, trousers, etc are "men's apparel", does it not? It doesn't matter what the Comanches, Eskimos, Arabs, Punjabis, Scotts, Irish, Goths, or Han Chinese did, felt, thought, believed, or practiced. So far, we have God revealing His opinion on the subject of pants, trousers, and breeches. And the record of that opinion is that only men wore them, thus making them men's apparel per the Bible.

Anyone who wishes to demonstrate that women's pants are sanctioned by Scripture, may do so now. Please remember however that data outside the Bible is irrelevent unless it helps explain or demonstrate something already in the Bible. Medo-Persian women dressing like men and riding horses like their husbands does not shed light on the Biblical data. Foreign, nonbiblical definitions of gender specific apparel does not determine what the biblical definitions or examples of gender specific apparel are.

So, if you believe women's pants are Biblically authorised, you would need to show that women's pants are biblically authorised. Or show that women in the Bible wore pants. And that God did not disapprove of them doing so.

The only other option is to demonstrate a different hermeneutic that is Biblical and consistent, and which would lead to the conclusion that women's pants are indeed allowed, but for some reason I haven't seen any evidence that the pro-women's pants crowd has a clue how to do that.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, your Kung Fu is very good!

Amen

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You weren't just sharing your thoughts.

No, seriously, I was just sharing my thoughts.

Biblical accuracy really doesn't matter to you in the grand scheme of things.
It isn't about the Bible, it isn't about the Bible languages, or how these ancient bedouins dressed, or if their women were walking stark naked through the court of the women. Or if they were wearing Yoga pants under their Hotel robes.

No, you weren't sharing. If it didn't matter to you as you just posted, then why did you post it? Bro, you tried conservative, you are trying out far left, the way you are going you might end up with Sam Harris.

So basically, you're saying that the conservative position you hold only stands if you interpret Scripture in a vacuum and reject all external archaeological, linguistic, cultural, and historical data that might point to the contrary.

I think you just posted something we can agree upon.