More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have Bible for the three Hebrews refusing the Babylonian meat. You have Bible for the three Hebrews refusing to bow to an idol. They were issued Babylonian names, do you have Bible illustrating that they refused these names? Do you have Bible illustrating that they refused Babylonian clothing? Or... are you taking a leap of logic and arguing from silence based merely on their refusal of meat and idolatry?

What you fail to understand is that where the pants came from is not the issue. The fact is they wore them. You have tried, foolishly, to argue they were "assimilated" into Babylonian culture. THAT is a leap of faith! There is as much evidence of that as there is for godly women wearing pants!

The Jews were threatened by Haman and saved by a Esther. The Jews were threatened because they maintained their identity. The Hebrew young men were thrown into the fiery furnace for maintaining their Jewish Identity. In this identity, it was okay for a man to wear pants.

I guess I will try to type slower next time...

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Please give biblical evidence of high-heel shoes and pantyhose in ancient Israel. The outcome is the same. Prove that these things are acceptable attire for women with "Biblical evidence". You can't, because they weren't a part of their attire in their culture.

You're joking right? You bring up anecdotal NON-biblical evidence and I respond in the same way and suddenly you have an epiphany that your logic is wrong then, you want to chastise me for following your logic.

Originally Posted by Aquila

There you go with your conservative delusions again. No one said anything about any of those things here. Stay on topic or find medication, please. lol

Fascinating. You chastise others for this but do so yourself.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I have Biblical evidence that Babylon and ancient Israel existed.

That's all the evidence you have.
I think everyone here agrees. Babylon and Israel were real nations.

Originally Posted by Aquila

And, I have archeological, historical, cultural, and linguistic evidence from both cultures that indicate that pants were NOT a part of Israelite attire at all (which is why they aren't mentioned on women or men within Israel).

That's why you agree the Bible demonstrates the godly young men were wearing pants. Maybe you should go back and read what you post. It appears that you forgot you agreed they were wearing pants. You see, when you use words like "at all" which implies everyone, you must include everyone. Then, when you agree that godly Jewish men wore pants you contradict yourself and make your self look foolish. Therefore, by your own admission you have lied when you say

Originally Posted by Aquila

pants were NOT a part of Israelite attire at all

It is clear you cannot maintain a coherent thought.
It is also clear that godly Jewish men did indeed and in fact wear pants. Unless you know more than the God because God told us through Daniel that it is so.

Originally Posted by Aquila

However, archeology, history, cultural, and linguistic evidence do indicate that pants were indeed worn by both genders in Babylon. So, odds are... the three Hebrews got their pants (trousers) from Babylon during their captivity.

Once again it does not matter where the origination came from. The fact remains godly men wore pants. Godly women did not. These men who stood strong for the Jewish identity did not find anything wrong with wearing pants. They went to a fiery furnace in defense of their Jewish identity. Yet you seem to want to make them out to be marshmallow men who embraced Babylon - your evidence, like all other evidence of yours, is non-existent.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I can also demonstrate that the attire of the ancient Hebrews (which didn't change much for thousands of years) were actually rather similar in cut and style.

We know that men and women's clothes were not identical, but all the evidence suggests that they were much alike in their general design.

Yet, another red herring. We are not talking about this. The thread is about Deu. 22:5 and the debate is over pants. Keep up and stay on topic. Provide Biblical evidence that a godly woman wore pants.

Originally Posted by Aquila

There are many different sections of the Ancient Hebrew dress. Some of these parts are the Inner Garment (also known as the tunic or shirt), the Outer Tunic or Robe, the Girdle, the Outer Garment or Mantle, and the Headdress.

The tunic was a shirt that was worn next to the skin. It was made out of leather, haircloth, wool, or linen. Both sexes wore tunics but they was a difference in the style and pattern. For men, the tunic came down to the knees and was fastened at the waist by a girdle of leather or cloth. Female tunics were very similar to the males, but went down to their ankles.

There were and still are two different kinds of girdles. These girdles are normally either made out of leather, linen, or even sometimes silk. For the most part, girdles served as pouch to keep money and other things that an individual might need. It was also used to fasten a man's sword to his body. Hence the girdle was a very important part of a man's attire.

The outer garment (kesut) also covered one while sleeping and was the final and most important part of one's wardrobe. The male and female version of the outer garment were also similar but were different in design. There were also different types of outer garments. For example, women wore special outwear when they were widowed. All outer garments went to right above the ankles and had a hood (women) or ended at the middle of the calf (man).

So, similarity in attire isn't a sin.

You must really like listening to yourself. You cannot stay on topic for anything. You must jump to conclusions (like the three Hebrews being assimilated into Babylonian culture without evidence) and build straw man arguments while ignoring the facts,
Godly men wore pants. Godly women did not. The topic is not about tunics, robes, girdles etc. It is simply about pants. Keep up with the topic - pants (bifurcated garments and their Biblical evidences).

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

thought the following was interesting information

http://www.orthodox-jews.com/jewish-...#axzz4hvdvSRqb

Jewish Clothing for Women - Described

The Jewish people have spanned every corner of the earth for thousands of years, yet Jewish clothing for women has, in essence, not changed very drastically. While there are small details which may differ from community to community, traditional women's Jewish clothing tends to include sleeves that cover the elbows, shirts that cover the collarbone, skirts that cover the knees and clothing that is not too tight-fitting.

Skirts are worn by Orthodox Jewish women because pants are considered to show the female form in an inappropriate way, as well as the fact that there is an explicit verse against cross-dressing in the Torah. There are rabbis who are lenient on this issue, however.

Tights or socks are also sometimes worn by Orthodox Jewish women, depending on the community they live in. There are also those who avoid bright or eye-catching colors, especially the color red and skirts with slits. Some women will only wear closed-toe shoes, but other women have no problem wearing sandals. In some places, acceptable clothing for Orthodox Jewish women would be shirts with shorter sleeves, and sometimes the collarbone need not be not totally covered.

Jewish Clothing for Women to be unique

There is a biblical law that commands the Jewish people to be a separate among the nations, thus is it also forbidden to wear clothing that imitates gentile fashion too closely. This is not meant to be a mark against the gentiles, in fact, it is written in the Talmud that "If someone says that the Gentiles have knowledge, believe it, because it is true." (Midrash Eichah Rabbah, 2:13) It is simply a matter of being obligated to avoid fads and trends that tend to come up in the world.

Orthodox women who are married are bound by Biblical law to cover their hair, with either a hat, snood, scarf or wig. It is considered a great thing for a married Jewish woman to dress up for her husband, thus jewelry and cosmetics can be a staple in a woman's repertoire.

Traditional Jewish clothing for Women has not changed through the years because its foundation, the Torah and Jewish law, has not changed in all this time.


Read more: http://www.orthodox-jews.com/jewish-...#ixzz4hvfeYgou

As EB has illustrated, Judaism is apostate and can't be used as a reference.

But, for the record, I do sympathize with modesty concerns. But the very same rabbis will tell you, as in the article above, "There are rabbis who are lenient on this issue, however." This is because the theological aspects of Deuteronomy 22:5 are not agreed upon by all, due to the issues I've stated.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is clear that all Aquila wants to do is argue. He cannot refute the fact that Godly men wore pants and Godly women did not. So he launches into fallacy after fallacy while simultaneously ignoring the basic and fundamental fact mentioned above.

Of course Godly women didn't wear bifurcated garments in ancient Israel. No one did. Godly women also didn't wear pantyhose or high heels. But you compromise for those items.

He is welcome to continue to let his wife wear the pants in his family...

Another personal insult.

You "conservatives" have me beaten on the number of insults 10 to 1. LOL

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

What you fail to understand is that where the pants came from is not the issue. The fact is they wore them.

Men wore hosiery before women too. You're not being consistent.

You have tried, foolishly, to argue they were "assimilated" into Babylonian culture. THAT is a leap of faith!

*Rolling eyes at you*

Everyone knows they were given Babylonian names as part of their assimilation. Now you're denying a plain reality to support your silly and extreme interpretation. Conservatives know no bounds in twisting a historical truth to justify their Taliban style extremism.

There is as much evidence of that as there is for godly women wearing pants!

In ancient Israel, Godly men didn't even wear pants. Why do you deny this?

The Jews were threatened by Haman and saved by a Esther. The Jews were threatened because they maintained their identity. The Hebrew young men were thrown into the fiery furnace for maintaining their Jewish Identity. In this identity, it was okay for a man to wear pants.

You need to study your Bible more. The three Hebrews were captives in Babylon, an assimilating nation. The Jews in the time of Esther were captive in Persia, a nation that prided itself on subjective diversity.

I guess I will try to type slower next time...

That's a great idea. Start with this statement, "B-a-b-y-l-o-n isn't P-e-r-s-i-a."

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

You're joking right? You bring up anecdotal NON-biblical evidence and I respond in the same way and suddenly you have an epiphany that your logic is wrong then, you want to chastise me for following your logic.

You've based an entire premise on three captive Hebrews in Babylon. Whom you swear were wearing the latest style of Hebrew Levis. LOL

That's why you agree the Bible demonstrates the godly young men were wearing pants. Maybe you should go back and read what you post. It appears that you forgot you agreed they were wearing pants. You see, when you use words like "at all" which implies everyone, you must include everyone. Then, when you agree that godly Jewish men wore pants you contradict yourself and make your self look foolish. Therefore, by your own admission you have lied when you say

Show me evidence that the Hebrew males wore pants as part of their regular attire at home in their native land. For that is where they would have practiced Deuteronomy 22:5 in truest form.

It is clear you cannot maintain a coherent thought.

More insults. Is it possible to have an intellectual discussion with a conservative without insults?

It is also clear that godly Jewish men did indeed and in fact wear pants.

Pants issued by Babylon, probably given to them when they received their Babylonian names.

Unless you know more than the God because God told us through Daniel that it is so.

God and myself know the conditions of the Babylonian captivity. Evidently you need to go back and study up on it.

Once again it does not matter where the origination came from. The fact remains godly men wore pants.

You have three captive Hebrews wearing Babylonian garb that included pants in Babylon, and you're clinging to it like your last line of defense. Because... it is. LOL

Godly women did not. These men who stood strong for the Jewish identity did not find anything wrong with wearing pants.

I am fair. That statement I can agree with. They did not see anything wrong with wearing the Babylonian pants issued to them in their captivity. However, they would not have been wearing those pants had they not been taken captive. They'd be wearing what all ancient Israelites wore, tunics. Tunics that were actually quite similar to those worn by their female counterparts.

They went to a fiery furnace in defense of their Jewish identity.

No they didn't. They went to a fiery furnace because of their love for God. What is the hang-up with "identity" over God? Oh, let me guess... trying to preserve all those unbiblical standards, I assume.

Yet you seem to want to make them out to be marshmallow men who embraced Babylon - your evidence, like all other evidence of yours, is non-existent.

No, they were captive prisoners of war. The Babylonians stripped them of their Hebrew names, stripped them of their Hebrew dress, stripped them of their Hebrew freedoms. Yet they refused to eat the king's meat and refused to bow to the king's idol, even in the face of death. They were politically defeated, yet spiritually victorious.

Yet, another red herring. We are not talking about this. The thread is about Deu. 22:5 and the debate is over pants. Keep up and stay on topic. Provide Biblical evidence that a godly woman wore pants.

Look, if Deuteronomy 22:5 requires such radical distinction, one has to ask... why did both males and females essentially wear the same style of clothing throughout ancient Israel's history within the Holy Land? It is very relevant to this discussion. Because nearly 4,00 years of history testifies to Deuteronomy 22:5 NOT being interpreted as you are interpreting it.

You must really like listening to yourself. You cannot stay on topic for anything. You must jump to conclusions (like the three Hebrews being assimilated into Babylonian culture without evidence) and build straw man arguments while ignoring the facts,

More personal insults from the conservative. Just like the other conservative. I see a trend.

Nevertheless, I'm still standing. I know the truth.

Here's a question that will answer one of our most divisive disagreements on this matter.

Why were the three Hebrews issued Babylonian names and addressed by their Babylonian names while captive in Babylon???

Please answer this question for me. I want to see how you dance around the fact that the Babylonians tried to rob them of their Hebrew identity, and that would include forcing them to wear Babylonian attire, which included the pants that you're reading about.

Godly men wore pants.

You've staked your entire argument on three pairs of Babylonian pants. LOL

Godly women did not.

No one in ancient Israel wore pants (the Levites wore only breeches, when serving before the altar). The average Israelite wore tunics. And there is no biblical evidence that the Levites wore these breeches when not serving before the altar.

The topic is not about tunics, robes, girdles etc. It is simply about pants. Keep up with the topic - pants (bifurcated garments and their Biblical evidences).

Okay, no one in ancient Israel wore "bifurcated" PANTS until they were taken captive into Babylon. Until then, men and women wore tunics, similar in cut and style with minor differences as it related to length, fabric, and color.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You "conservatives" have me beaten on the number of insults 10 to 1. LOL

You obviously aren't counting your posts in the political thread.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I think some things should be left personal. How people dress in their bed should be between them and God alone. No offence.

You either missed the point or willfully choose to ignore it. I'm personally not worried about what they wear in their bedroom, in private. I am the one affirming Christian liberty, not the one telling a woman how they must dress, wear their hair, style their nails, what types of shoes to wear, etc, etc. Aquila caught the point, read his post.....

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

This is it, but instead of a straight answer, we get deflection:

"What someone wears in their own home is their own business"
"Thats between them and their husband"
"PJs is issue number 2, until we settle pants theres no need to talk about pjs"
"Beards and ling sleeves are different issues"
"After you come to my church then we can discuss it"

Come on guys, the reason I asked was to see if y'all could be consistent. I'm not surprised y'all don't want to touch it, but if a bifurcated garment on a woman is an abomination, then it must be so even in private.

**Check Mate** You guys logic has failed.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Which brings us back to hosiery. Hosiery is bifurcated. You'd find that hosiery was actually before pants as we know them. You'll also discover that hosiery was originally worn by males.

Why are pantyhose permitted?

Oh snap.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Abominations which were in the law are abrogated?

Yet you eat bacon?