More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother this is good.

Thank you in Jesus name

Hold on...

I already explained that Babylonians and Persians wore pants. You said it was irrelevant. In fact, what you're seeing in this relief is an example of the type of trousers that were issued to the three Hebrews (Babylon's pants predating Persia's). Also, in the past, I've referenced Josephus several times, and you basically explained that his writings can't be trusted.

So... why you acting like this relief showing a Parthian wearing pants (proving my earlier statements) and a reference from Josephus has saved your day? lol

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Hold on...

I already explained that Babylonians and Persians wore pants. You said it was irrelevant. In fact, what you're seeing in this relief is an example of the type of trousers that were issued to the three Hebrews (Babylon's pants predating Persia's). Also, in the past, I've referenced Josephus several times, and you basically explained that his writings can't be trusted.

So... why you acting like this relief showing a Parthian wearing pants (proving my earlier statements) and a reference from Josephus has saved your day? lol

Because some people refuse to read Duet. 22:5 in the time and setting of the time period, and force it into American and European society 5000 years later.

When God instructed Moses to make breeches for the priest, during and only during the ministration of the tabernacle. It was to cover their nakedness. Meaning that any other time men wore robes without breeches, just as a women. So if one wants to get technical dresses were men's and women's apparel long before pants. So all of these pictures of men in a skirt are moot.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Would have been much of a problem in ancient Israel. Men and women essentially dressed the same.

I notice you do the same thing in the political section of this forum. You are offered valid evidence but just continue in your leftist agenda. Like I told you folks, this has nothing to do with Bible, clothing, or Deuteronomy 22:5. It is a change agent's agenda. It has already been proven that attire was different. Deuteronomy 22:5 plainly states that. Stick to politics, I notice you like shaking the cage.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Hold on...

I already explained that Babylonians and Persians wore pants. You said it was irrelevant. In fact, what you're seeing in this relief is an example of the type of trousers that were issued to the three Hebrews (Babylon's pants predating Persia's). Also, in the past, I've referenced Josephus several times, and you basically explained that his writings can't be trusted.

So... why you acting like this relief showing a Parthian wearing pants (proving my earlier statements) and a reference from Josephus has saved your day? lol

What are you hard of reading?

I posted that the three Hebrew children didn't have a problem because 1 the trousers under cloaks were already in use in Jerusalem. Then 2 the trousers had nothing to do with any pagan ritual. Stick to politics. I see you have a huge amount of friends cheering, or should I say sneering.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Because some people refuse to read Duet. 22:5 in the time and setting of the time period, and force it into American and European society 5000 years later.

When God instructed Moses to make breeches for the priest, during and only during the ministration of the tabernacle. It was to cover their nakedness. Meaning that any other time men wore robes without breeches, just as a women. So if one wants to get technical dresses were men's and women's apparel long before pants. So all of these pictures of men in a skirt are moot.

I wish you would read the thread. These points were already addressed. But I'll repeat myself for you. Because I love you.

I already over and over place the verse in its Bronze Age setting. Placing it in some modern age would just confuse the student. They are confused because of their modern culture being so opposite of God's culture. The priest only having religious pants specifically to hide their private parts. Would logically lead the student to believe that God doesn't have a problem with any others in the tribe allowing it to all hang out. Meaning ladders, Zacchaus climbing trees with Jesus looking up at him. Understand?

[Aquila]

I would like to recommend that any readers reading this thread take the time to read the article posted by Esaias. The link is here:

https://bellatory.com/fashion-indust...estern-Culture

One of the statements made in this article was,

Before the 20th century, women wore loose pantalettes or drawers under dresses for modesty and warmth. Though actual pants were sometimes seen on women in the late 1800s and in the early part of the 20th century, it was not until the 1970s that the wearing of trousers by women was accepted for business or dress occasions.

If one reads the entire article they will be met with the reality that women of Western culture have nearly always worn bifurcated forms of clothing, or pants. However, they would traditionally wear a dress or skirt over them. As the pictures will show, the pants were often visible below their dresses. This actually answers my question regarding bifurcated pantyhose, which is warn under dresses and skirts today.

What I think our more conservative brethren aren't seeing is... bifurcated garments were never considered an "abomination" on a woman. In fact, their own source above states that women wore pantalettes or drawers under dresses for modesty and warmth. Isn't it interesting that pants were dawned by women and worn under their dresses for the sake of modesty? If wearing bifurcated garments are an abomination, then the women of Western culture have been abominations since at least as far back as the late 1800's (according to this article).

The issue regarding pants vs. skirt for the New Testament Christian is not one of legalistic "abomination" as specified by the Law of Moses. The issue is... modesty. I've repeatedly explained that I have no issue with aspiring to a biblical modesty that involves women choosing of their own free will to wear dresses and skirts instead of pants. Some churches have no issue with women wearing pants at home or casually, but they request that women wear dresses or skirts when attending a church service as a means of ensuring modesty for worship.

So, what's the big debate here? Here are the positions presented:

The conservatives:
- Deuteronomy 22:5 is primarily applied to pants on women.
- Pants on women are an "abomination".
- Being an abomination, wearing pants is a sin that can cost a woman her soul
- Pants on a woman are always immodest.
- Women are therefore commanded to not wear pants.

The liberals (or moderates):
- The exact meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 is debated among scholars and is about something far more serious than mere pants on a woman (idolatry & perversion).
- We are not under the Law of Moses but under Grace.
- While Christians are not under the Law of Moses, we are admonished to be a modest people.
- Pants in and of themselves are not a sin or an abomination on a woman.
- It can be argued that dresses and/or skirts are more modest than pants.
- Women are encouraged to wear dresses and/or skirts as they seek biblical modesty in their Christian walk.
- Women who wish to wear pants are not regarded as being "in sin".
- Special care should be taken to ensure that one is modest when wearing pants.

I think our readers should chime in and perhaps share their thoughts on the issue after having heard both sides.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think our readers should chime in and perhaps share their thoughts on the issue after having heard both sides.

After over 880 posts and nearly 90 pages ... I think everything's been pretty much covered.

Personal commentary - check
Published opinions - check
Other versions/languages - check
Period Art/Drawings - check
Google sources - check, check, check!
Large Fonts - check
Colored Fonts - check
Gifs - Check!
Personal Insults - CHECK, you jerk!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

After over 880 posts and nearly 90 pages ... I think everything's been pretty much covered.

Personal commentary - check
Published opinions - check
Other versions/languages - check
Period Art/Drawings - check
Google sources - check, check, check!

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Added a few more checks . . .

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Pliny
I teach being clean shaven because in this society research has found that a clean shaven person is more readily accepted and trusted. These are important aspects in witnessing to the lost. We must be accepted and trusted and we must be found trustworthy. I do not find anywhere in scripture that being clean shaven is a sin; therefore, I teach men to shave.

[QUOTE=Jason B;1484118]Notreally, they go hand and hand. Hair, make up, pants, sleeves, beards, anything associated with outward physical appearance and "holiness standards" is totally relevant. After reading the rest of your post though I can see why you wouldn't want to discuss these things here.

So many problems with this answer. Only in your mind. It will be demonstrated that you are very wrong.

1)You refer to culture, "this society", as a reason men should be clean shaven, yet refuse to accept that the same culture accepts pants/slacks/capris/culottes on women as perfectly feminine.

I refer to the Bible. There is a Biblical command for a woman to not wear that which pertains to a man and vice versa. I guess you missed that even though this has ben discussed for several pages and a few hundred posts. How you missed it can only mean willful blindness. Still looking for that ONE place that demonstrates a godly woman wore pants. Apparently you can’t find it either. Now show me the verse that demonstrates a clean shaven face is sin.

2)You make "research" (either polls or studies or both) to be your authority and guide on this issue rather than scripture. Quite telling.

Research is certainly something that should be done. You should try it rather than swinging for the proverbial fence in attack mode. Since it is not a sin to be clean shaven, it is certainly okay to research the culture you are trying to reach and become all things to all men that we might be able to reach some. Again, as long as there is no Biblical prohibition against it.

3) While you are digging in your heels to defend the Law, and specifically your rigid interpretation of Dueteronomy 22:5, so much so that you condemn all female wearing of bifurcated garments as abomination, and denigrate anyone who doesn't agree, even later in this post calling me "far removed from God's Holy Spirit", you specifically CONTRADICT and undermine what GOD explicitly commanded in the same Law, when you "TEACH men to shave"

Rigid interpretation? It is quite clear. Deu. 22:5 states that a woman should not wear men’s clothing and a man should not wear women’s clothing. Again, you have miserably failed to demonstrate where in scripture a godly woman wore pants. As far as “denigrating” opposing views, you mean like your post? Does this make you a hypocrite? You are complaining about me while doing to me what you complain about. Does that sound about right? BTW I am not sure I would agree with your characterization of my posts. Care to give full context to my posts? I have neither contradicted nor undermined God’s word. In fact I have used God’s word while others, like you, have miserably failed to produce a single example of a godly woman wearing pants in the Bible.

"You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard. ~Leviticus 27:17

God said "you shall not"
You admit you teach "you shall"

This is your evidence? You do know the difference between being clean shaven and trimming a corner of a beard right? Well, perhaps not. You apparently think that trimming the corner of a beard is the same thing as shaving off the beard. BTW it would be helpful if you used the correct verse. Lev. 27:17 has nothing to do with beards. Try Lev. 19:27 or 21:5. It is sad that you would criticize me so critically then fail to use a proper source. In addition to the terrible interpretation of equating trimming a corner to completely removing there is the Biblical example of Joseph. You know, the man that is used as a precursor to Christ Himself. He was clean shaven (Gen 41:14).
Now concerning “research”, Herodotus reveals that this was a heathen custom in honor of their deity. Thus, has implications for idolatry.

The Arabs keep such pledges more religiously than almost any other people. They plight faith with the forms following. When two men would swear a friendship, they stand on each side of a third: he with a sharp stone makes a cut on the inside of the hand of each near the middle finger, and, taking a piece from their dress, dips it in the blood of each, and moistens therewith seven stones lying in the midst, calling the while on Bacchus and Urania. After this, the man who makes the pledge commends the stranger (or the citizen, if citizen he be) to all his friends, and they deem themselves bound to stand to the engagement. They have but these two gods, to wit, Bacchus and Urania; and they say that in their mode of cutting the hair, they follow Bacchus. Now their practice is to cut it in a ring, away from the temples. Bacchus they call in their language Orotal, and Urania, Alilat.
The Histories of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, Translated by George Rawlinson, Book III, p. 8
So you should really try doing some original research before castigating someone for doing so. It makes you look angry and vindictive.

I had to break this up because it is too long.