More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Based on what hermeneutic do you take Duet 22:5 as a law to be taught, Leviticus 27:17 as a law to be ignorned, or even contradicted, and (I assume) Leviticus 27:18 as a Law still in force (prohibition against tattoos).

Your consistency is gone with the wind.

As demonstrated by my post, you are completely wrong and have no idea what you are talking about or what Biblical reference to use.
FTR
(Lev 27:17 KJV) If he sanctify his field from the year of jubile, according to thy estimation it shall stand.
(Lev 27:18 KJV) But if he sanctify his field after the jubile, then the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years that remain, even unto the year of the jubile, and it shall be abated from thy estimation.

Originally Posted by Pliny
As to wearing long sleeves, yes there is Bible for that but I will not get into that here.

Whoa nellie. There's Bible for wearing long sleeves? You asked for an example of a godly woman who wore pants, I asked you for an example of a godly man who shaved or wore long sleeves, and you respond "there's Bible for that"? Please do tell. Do tell where the godly man wore long sleeves or what the specific Bible teaching is on long sleeves.

Word of the day: Eisegesis

Joseph was a godly man that shaved. As to a godly man wearing long sleeves, I wonder if you would accept the example of Christ?
(Joh 19:23 KJV) Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
According to VWS
“On His head He wore a white sudar, fastened under the chin and hanging down from the shoulders behind. Over the tunic which covered the body to the hands and feet…
There is also
Matthew 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Barnes
Coat - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior, here called the “coat,” or the tunic, was made commonly of linen, and encircled the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons.
Interesting that Barnes would note another garment that was sometimes worn in ancient Israel that corresponded to pants…
Sooo… your “word of the day” has come full circle to bite you.
Of course, if you do not want to be Christ-like that is your prerogative.



**Brother you've treated the scripture like silly putty**

Explain how you take Deut 22:5 literal and make it a binding standard, yet ignore verses 8 and 11. And how you can teach something that is 100% contradictory to Leviticus 19:27, while using Leviticus 19:28 to teach against tattoos.

Here you go again sounding angry and vindictive. Please demonstrate where I have ignored any passage of scripture? Please demonstrate where I have taught something completely 100% contrary to Lev. 19:27 and please demonstrate where I have said anything about Lev. 19:28. How foolish it is to complain about something I have never done. It is you that apparently cannot comprehend basic reading. There is a difference between trimming a corner and shaving. I have already given a Biblical example of a godly man that shaved. Now, please give me ONE scripture where a godly woman wore pants. Really, this just makes you look foolish. However, congratulations for getting the reference correct this time.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Jason B

**Brother you've treated the scripture like silly putty**

Explain how you take Deut 22:5 literal and make it a binding standard, yet ignore verses 8 and 11. And how you can teach something that is 100% contradictory to Leviticus 19:27, while using Leviticus 19:28 to teach against tattoos.

What is it with UCs? If there's a place they believe in taking liberty, it's when rushing to judgment about someone's heart, motives, and relationship with God. It's dangerously close to usurping GOd's role. I think y'all should cool it on these types of statements, but to each their own.

"I, the L ord , search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds."~Jeremiah 17:10

When someone believes their “feelings” about something trump the Bible and attempt to use the idea of “feeling after the Spirit” instead of paying attention to the written word of God – yeah that demonstrates how far removed from God they truly are. You can justify ignoring the Bible if you like, I will not. You should rethink your position. The Spirit of God will never contradict the Word of God. The Bible is God’s written expression of Himself. Sorry that makes you mad.


Of course I do. :rolleyes

Why is it conservatives cannot frame a conversation with logic. All y'all know are black and white or the extremes. Preach "If we tell 'em they can wear 3/4 sleeves before long they'll be sleevless bless God!" See here is the problem with legalism as a whole:

The legalist does not trust God to ultimately do what He says He will do. They do not trust that the Holy Spirit dwelling within the new convert can produce holiness by having the senses discerned to know good and evil and following the leading of the indwelling Spirit. They believe we need hard and fast rules (standards) in black and white, do's and dont's.
Indeed these things are great for the appearance of "holiness" but ultimately neither bring life, nor have value for overcoming the flesh. The apsotle Paul has aptly addressed this:

"If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)-in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence."~Colossians 2:20-23

Why is it liberals fail to see logic? Please demonstrate where I said “Preach "If we tell 'em they can wear 3/4 sleeves before long they'll be sleevless bless God!" See here is the problem with legalism as a whole:” Sounds like you are jumping to conclusions and projecting your opinions on me. You seem to do this often – accuse me of something I have not done. Then, build a straw man argument about legalism; thereby, implying I do not trust God. How magnanimous of you.

The ministry is given by God to perfect the saints (Eph. 4:11-12). That is done by preaching and teaching. You may hate the message but that does not make the message wrong. I have given Bible for my stands. Biblical reasons for Deu. 22:5 and I have given you Biblical passages for sleeve length and even demonstrated Biblically that a godly man was clean shaven. NOW PLEASE GIVE ME A BIBLICAL REFERENCE FOR A GODLY WOMAN WEARING PANTS.


Wow. Well you got me. That was a great original argument, never heard it.

Actually, I answered it above, the Spirit will lead His own.
The root of the problem isn't "holiness standards" or even y'alls legalistic application of them. It's a deeper theological problem which misunderstands what holiness is, the source of holiness, imputed righteousness, and the new nature of the regenerate man/woman, and the very defintion of grace.

Again I will ask for a single passage where a godly man shaved (as YOU teach they should).
Or a passage where someone wore long sleeves (as you implied you have Bible for).

See above



You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.~Lev 19:27

Thank you for demonstrating your apparent rejection of God’s gifts to men.
(Eph 4:11 KJV) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
(Eph 4:12 KJV) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

It is the minstry's responsibility to preach and teach.

The Spirit will never contradict the Bible because they are one and the same.
(2Pe 1:21 KJV) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Now, your God may be confused but mine is not. Now I have played your silly game, now give me ONE Biblical reference for a godly woman wearing pants.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

In the Bible Godly men wore robes and Godly women wore robes. End of story.

End of story ONLY when you reject the Bible.

the exceptions of the priesthood does not apply to all Godly men.

Please demonstrate where other men were restricted from wearing garments commanded by God. If you cannot do this then, your statement is fallacious. Which BTW it is.

There were not true "pants" in biblical times, therefore Deut 22:5 can not possible refer to something that did no existed.

You can make all kinds assertions you want. That does not make them true. The fact is there were pants in Biblical times and in FACT the three Hebrew young men wore them. Thus your entire post is absurd.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Can you identify the males, and the females, in the following image?

In Aquila's house the top figures on the left are men and the figures on the right are women.

Now before you get your Twinkies in a twist, remember Aquila brought up kilts and has defended women wearing pants.

[Aquila]

We all know Deuteronomy 22:5, it reads...

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)

Clearly, any article of clothing that is specified as being worn by men is not to be worn by women. Let's take a look at something interest...

“A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt.” Deuteronomy 22:30 (KJV)

“And it came to pass afterward, that David’s heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul’s skirt.” 1 Samuel 24:5 (KJV)

"Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." Zachariah 8:23 (KJV)

Biblically speaking, do skirts pertain to a man or to a woman?

[Pliny]

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.

Please demonstrate where God restricted the use of breeches outside of the tabernacle. After all, you have used the restrictive phrase "only during the ministration of the tabernacle". The passage is a positive commandment to wear them during ministration but nowhere is there the negative commandment to wear them only when ministering. Your are just simply wrong. BTW I doubt the Hebrew young men knew about America. Just saying.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by 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.

Still WAITING FOR BIBLICAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING A GODLY WOMAN WORE PANTS. Still having trouble finding it I see...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Still WAITING FOR BIBLICAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING A GODLY WOMAN WORE PANTS. Still having trouble finding it I see...

We do not see any mention of women wearing pants. So, your argument is based on silence. Arguments based on silence are weak, because the truth could be contrary to what is being implied. I don't read of any verse describing a woman passing gas in the Bible, should we assume that they didn't? LOL

[Aquila]

Here are some interesting questions and answers to ponder...

Do we see a commandment wherein God commands all men to wear pants? No.

Do we see a commandment wherein God commands all women to wear skirts? No.

I ask this because... for something to strictly pertain to a man or to a woman... wouldn't it have to be stated strictly as such?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Please demonstrate where God restricted the use of breeches outside of the tabernacle. After all, you have used the restrictive phrase "only during the ministration of the tabernacle". The passage is a positive commandment to wear them during ministration but nowhere is there the negative commandment to wear them only when ministering. Your are just simply wrong. BTW I doubt the Hebrew young men knew about America. Just saying.

It is written,

"And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:" Exodus 28:42 (KJV)

- First, this commandment was given strictly to the Levites.
- Second, this commandment was strictly given in relation to their priestly garments, which were to be warn when administering at the altar in the tabernacle.
- Thirdly, these breeches were to cover the Levites from the loins down to their thighs, meaning they rested at the knee. Thus, they were shorts, not pants.

There is no commandment commanding males in general to wear breeches or not to wear breeches. Therefore, I'd assume that if the Levitical garments became all the rave among the ancient Hebrew men, they would only be optional attire.