More on Skirts

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Please demonstrate where I said Deu. 22:5 is only about pants.
You cannot enough get the question right.

""Deu. 22:5 is about what men and women wear. Sorry you cannot see the obvious.""

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

On that, we agree. And it wasn't a sin to wear the hosen.

However, my point was, standard Israelite dress was the tunic with a belt, and then a longer tunic serving as an outer garment, only sometimes did they wear any form of breeches or pantaloons under these garments. Therefore, there is high probability that these men received their pants in Babylon.

Now you are back to these men probably getting pants in Babylon. You see, why I say you cannot keep a coherent thought? At one time you are dogmatic that the only way they got them was through their Babylonian assimilation making them transgressors (that is how your previous posts appeared to me). Now you are back to "probably".

What you fail to understand is that it does not matter where the pants came from. God's precepts are not limited to a geographical area. They are limitless in time and space just as He is. They do not lose their force on the moon and they do not loose their force in Babylon. He is immutable; therefore, His precepts are immutable.

Likewise it does not matter what the average mode of dress was or how popular certain fashions were or were not. What does matter is what God thinks about them. I am certain He does not care about the popularity of an item nor is He willing to take a vote.

The entire argument is meaningless.

The Biblical evidence reveals that godly men wore pants. Godly women did not.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, this is an argument from silence.

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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Additionally, the argument is that Deut 22:5 prohibits women from wearing things that "pertain to a man", pants are described in the Bible as only being worn by men, thus pants are Biblically something that "pertains to a man".

It is a very simple and straightforward argument. In fact, it is a simple syllogism:

No women can wear men's clothing.
Pants are men's clothing.
Therefore, women cannot wear pants.

No A is B.
C is B.
Therefore, no A is C.

A is "women can wear".
B is "men's clothing".
C is "pants".
Therefore, "no women can wear pants."

In order to refute the argument, it would have to be shown that either one or both of the premises are wrong, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises if the premises are in fact true.

So far, A cannot be refuted, because it is a plain statement from Scripture.
B has not been refuted because only men in the bible wore pants and no women in the Bible are seen to be wearing pants.
The conclusion cannot be refuted because it follows necessarily from the two premises.

For example:

No cats are dogs.
Chihuahuas are dogs.
Therefore, no cats are chihuahuas.

Given the two premises, it is impossible for the conclusion to be otherwise. If no cats are dogs, and if chihuahuas are dogs, then it necessarily follows that no cat is a chihuahua. EVERY syllogism with this form: No A is B, C is B, therefore no A is C, must necessarily be correct and valid.

Corrections to the syllogistic diagramming appreciated.

Aquila, pay attention. This may help you.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Aquila, pay attention. This may help you.

Pay attention Pliny, let me help you...

If you wear a pretty pink pair of ladies jeans, and prance around in your favorite dance club, you're in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5 because you are wearing that which pertains to a woman. PERIOD. END OF SUBJECT.

Now, let me hear you argue as to why you should be able to wear petty pink ladies pants because they pertain to you.

It's common sense.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Speaking of Deu 22:5 and the word "wear": "hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be"

So this is your answer? You are a Hebrew scholar and know more than all the translators? LOL!

Tell us why the translators used the word "wear"? While you're at it, translate Deu. 22:5. If wear does not mean wear, please tell me what it means. Inquiring minds want to know!

I will make it easy for you, Fill in the blank:
(Deu 22:5 JPS) A woman shall not BLANK that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Thank you

[Esaias]

Well, one thing is for certain:

If women can wear pants without being in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5, nobody on AFF (at least) has the wherewithal to prove it.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not going to argue the issue.
But then again, here you go

I've been on the sidelines most of this debate because I believe both sides are missing the point. The point isn't how an article of clothing will/won't make a woman Godly; the point is modesty. Again, I've seen numerous apostolic/Pentecostal women who wear skirts and dresses and are the most immodest and ungodly women I've met.

No, Deu 22:5 is not about pants. No, dresses/skirts do not a Godly woman make. And no, I don't know Paul's motivation for not mentioning that a woman should wear only one type of clothing, and neither do you.

That is what I implied. I cannot know Paul's motivation.

You can claim that the reason he did so was because there weren't any women wearing pants then, but that's just an assumption which could only be proven had you a time machine to go back to that time period.

I did not claim anything. Do you have a hard time comprehending what you read? I believe I suggested a possibility and ended the sentence with a question mark. Perhaps you should read it again.

I would mention the customs of the day versus the customs today, but I'm not going to argue about it. Nor will I argue the hypocrisy of applying only one part of the law while ignoring the other parts of the law, and doing so while claiming we are not under Moses' law.

Please demonstrate where I done anything you are accusing me of. If you can't then you are mistaken or just plain lying. But hey, I am glad you are not "arguing the issue" LOL!

I find it odd that the outspoken authority on holiness standards, DK Bernard, has responded to the question of UPCI women in India wearing pants as "it's their custom," while yet condemning American women for the same. Either it's okay or it's not. There cannot be exceptions for certain countries because of custom, especially when in the US it's been the custom since the mid-1900s.

You should take that up with D.K. Bernard not me.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

So this is your answer? You are a Hebrew scholar and know more than all the translators? LOL!

Oh, pardon me, I should have used the Dictionary.com definition, as you did, instead of looking up the Hebrew definition of the word. I didn't realize the translators used Dictionary.com and the English definition of the word.

I never claimed to be any type of scholar, nor have I claimed to know more than the translators. I find it incredibly rich that you would mock my posting the Hebrew definition, when you used Dictionary.com to post the English definition to the word.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Apparently you do not understand the word "wear". Here is a definition: "to carry or have on the body or about the person as a covering, equipment, ornament, or the like:"

So you use Dictionary.com, but mock me for looking up the Hebrew meaning of the word?

smh

I'm done. I have no desire to argue about this, and I am not going to start ad hominem attacks, which you're trying to draw me in to.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Um, how am I arguing from silence when I gave you the actual texts that speak of these "breeches" being a specific article of clothing incorporated into the priest's attire, and the very verse where God informs them that they are to wear this when administering in the tabernacle????

Now, if you're saying they hung out all day in their priestly attire and kicked it with their buddies at the bowling alley over beer and pizza, well... I have no evidence against it. However, you have no evidence for it either.

But what we DO know is that the breeches were part of the priestly attire to be worn while ministering in the tabernacle.

Wow! They had bowling alleys back then! LOL

You are arguing from silence that godly women wore pants.

Please feel free to demonstrate where God prohibited the priest from wearing breeches except at the temple.

While you're at it, demonstrate where God prohibited other men from wearing breeches.

Thank you.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, one thing is for certain:

If women can wear pants without being in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5, nobody on AFF (at least) has the wherewithal to prove it.

If you wear a pretty pink pair of ladies jeans, and prance all around your favorite little church, you're in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5 because you are wearing that which pertains to a woman. PERIOD. END OF SUBJECT. PROVEN.

Now, let me hear you argue as to why you should be able to wear petty pink ladies pants because they supposedly pertain to you.

It's common sense.