More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I did answer that question. Neither men nor women are recorded as having worn pants in ancient Israel. In fact, what they did wear were tunics, girdles (belts) about the waist, and a larger outer tunic, sandals, veils, etc. And the general cut and styles were such that there wasn't much difference between male and female attire. If you saw someone in a field wearing full attire in the colder season, at 50 yards you'd not be able to tell if they were a male or female.

This is ridiculous. The Levites were not part of ancient Israel? The T=three Hebrew young men were not part of ancient Israel? Good grief! Is holiness only found in a geographical location? Apparently you must think so. No wonder your thinking is so preposterous. Apparently, God's writing to mankind is limited to Judea. Give me a break. That has got to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard.

The three Hebrew young men maintained their integrity in the face of death. They also wore pants while maintaining that integrity. Do yourself a favor. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

[good samaritan]

Pentecostal ladies are made to feel homely and plain and that people feel sorry for them. Even if that Pentecostal lady is minding her own business other women snurl up their nose. People can say all day long what they want about pants on a woman, but I know from personal witness accounts that ladies are abused for choosing to wear skirts. My wife was tormented through school for her beliefs and by the time most kids get out of our good ole public school system they have been so shamed about the way they dressed they change their stance. Most of the women that I know who struggle with pants is because of this. I would never want to compromise to just to fit in with a crowd of people who truly hate me.

If you have not grown up OP then this is a side that many haven't seen.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

This is ridiculous. The Levites were not part of ancient Israel? The T=three Hebrew young men were not part of ancient Israel? Good grief! Is holiness only found in a geographical location? Apparently you must think so. No wonder your thinking is so preposterous. Apparently, God's writing to mankind is limited to Judea. Give me a break. That has got to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard.

The three Hebrew young men maintained their integrity in the face of death. They also wore pants while maintaining that integrity. Do yourself a favor. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

You're stuck on silly. lol

Originally Posted by Pliny

This is ridiculous. The Levites were not part of ancient Israel?

The Levites wore "breeches", not "trousers". They were a part of the inner garment and went down to just below the knee. In addition, they were commanded to wear them only when officiating in the temple, so as to keep their nakedness from showing when ascending the steps to the altar. This clearly implies that the command was necessary because breeches were not common attire. If it was common attire among the Israelites, please give us PROOF.

The T=three Hebrew young men were not part of ancient Israel?

The three Hebrews were captive in Babylon. They were carried away, most likely castrated, issued Babylonian names, and given standard Babylonian attire, which included trousers (or pants). Babylon wasn't the Ramada Inn where they had loaded suitcases with Israelite Levi's that they wore while attending as servants to the Babylonian officials. Again, if the Israelites had packed their clothes and were wearing them among the Babylonians, please give us PROOF that the average Israelite wore trousers.

Good grief! Is holiness only found in a geographical location? Apparently you must think so. No wonder your thinking is so preposterous. Apparently, God's writing to mankind is limited to Judea. Give me a break. That has got to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard.

This statement is just more blathering in effort to strengthen your already weak position because no one said any of that.

The three Hebrew young men maintained their integrity in the face of death. They also wore pants while maintaining that integrity. Do yourself a favor. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

The three Hebrews were issued Babylonian names and attire. Prove me wrong. I can prove that it was standard custom for the Babylonians to assimilate captive peoples. Can you prove they brought those Jewish Levi's with them from Judea? What we see is a captive people. And when faced with captivity, they maintained their diet and their faith because it was all that they could maintain. When faced with bowing to the idol, that's when they drew the line.

Stop trying to read into the passage something that isn't there.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Pliny

You answered your own question. When you come to my church we can have a more detailed discussion. I have answered this to a degree already. I am to teach and preach. After that people musty make up their own minds and God is their judge not me. I do not want to go off on a tangent. I would rather "settle" the issue first. Pants first, PJ's second. If a person refuses to accept the "pants" issue there is no point in moving on to PJs.

Just like witnessing to some people. If they cannot accept Jesus Name baptism, there is little point in pressing the need for the Holy Ghost.

I don't think we are to bring up what people wear to their bedroom into this discussion. Personally I think it would be inappropriate for a preacher/teacher to teach his congregation what women must wear to bed. Let men govern their own homes and keep things private such as bed clothes. Fathers and mothers can tend to their children, but some things I don't think are meant to be dealt with publicly.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Pentecostal ladies are made to feel homely and plain and that people feel sorry for them. Even if that Pentecostal lady is minding her own business other women snurl up their nose. People can say all day long what they want about pants on a woman, but I know from personal witness accounts that ladies are abused for choosing to wear skirts. My wife was tormented through school for her beliefs and by the time most kids get out of our good ole public school system they have been so shamed about the way they dressed they change their stance. Most of the women that I know who struggle with pants is because of this. I would never want to compromise to just to fit in with a crowd of people who truly hate me.

If you have not grown up OP then this is a side that many haven't seen.

I can sympathize with this point. I have much respect for pastors who admonish women to wear skirts and dresses because they feel they better reflect Christian modesty. And I have much respect for women who have struggled to maintain that level of modesty in the face of social opposition. And, I'd encourage that if that is how they feel and if that is what their pastor has admonished them to do, that they not give in and surrender that modesty standard.

However, I have to differ with those who use Deuteronomy 22:5 is about pants... and then turn to call women wearing pants an abomination. That's twisting Scripture and being abusive. None of the Israelites wore pants as part of their common attire when it was written. Even among the Levites, the breeches were to be worn when officiating in the tabernacle. They didn't just hang out all day in their priestly garments and breeches down at the gate.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I don't think we are to bring up what people wear to their bedroom into this discussion. Personally I think it would be inappropriate for a preacher/teacher to teach his congregation what women must wear to bed. Let men govern their own homes and keep things private such as bed clothes. Fathers and mothers can tend to their children, but some things I don't think are meant to be dealt with publicly.

I agree with you. However, since these people are convinced that bifurcated garments are an "abomination" based on Deuteronomy 22:5... it can't be circumstantial or a matter of conviction. It would be an abomination to wear bifurcated garments regardless as to if they are worn in public or private. This is yet another example of how misapplying Deuteronomy 22:5 spills over into condemning things it was never designed to condemn unless it is exegeted accurately.

If they argue that bifurcated garments are an "abomination" based on Deuteronomy 22:5, they have to condemn any bedroom attire and pajamas that are bifurcated. They can't say that an "abomination" is okay as long as it is worn in private. lol

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I never said that sin did not exsist before the 20th century, but if you are suggesting our country is growing closer to God I don't know what to say.

It had nothing to do with the an image of perfection, but just plain shame. I was a shame for some of the things people do today to be done back then. You are right people were ashamed back then to do publicly what they do today. You say it as if it is a good thing that we have culture that displays their sins as if they are proud of it. Sin should be repented of not heralded.

Mt 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved:but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

The world is getting worse.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The world is getting worse.

I agree. But it isn't getting worse because of pants. lol

[Aquila]

Attached is an example of the Levitical breeches, which were worn as an under garment when the priests were officiating at the altar. They weren't pants, and they weren't common attire. They had to cover their "nakedness". Which is essentially the thighs and groin. They were essentially shorts worn under their robes.

No "pants" were among the Israelites. Nor were any "pants" worn as common every day attire.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I agree with you. However, since these people are convinced that bifurcated garments are an "abomination" based on Deuteronomy 22:5... it can't be circumstantial or a matter of conviction. It would be an abomination to wear bifurcated garments regardless as to if they are worn in public or private. This is yet another example of how misapplying Deuteronomy 22:5 spills over into condemning things it was never designed to condemn unless it is exegeted accurately.

If they argue that bifurcated garments are an "abomination" based on Deuteronomy 22:5, they have to condemn any bedroom attire and pajamas that are bifurcated. They can't say that an "abomination" is okay as long as it is worn in private. lol

They have to condemn what people wear to bed?????

They can't say that an "abomination" is okay as long as it is worn in private??????

I have never in my life heard of a preacher preach on lingerie in bed. Pants are pants I agree, but I think I will let people deal with this one without my help.