More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Now you're being irrational. What you're telling me is that since men wore pantaloons as an undergarment, it is evidence that men wore pants. However, if I point out that women wore these pantaloons too, you refuse to see it as evidence that women wore pants too? LOL That's not a balanced interpretation.

And as I've asked before, why was this allowable under Deuteronomy 22:5 if they interpreted it as you do???

You have NEVER demonstrated that women wore pants of any kind. Please give me the chapter and verse.

If pantaloons on men is proof they wore pants... then why isn't the pantaloons warn by women under their interior garments proof that women wore pants too?

Irrational is when you say the Hebrew "probably received their pants" from Babylon then in the same post dogmatically say they were forced to wear them. Irrational is when you post some convoluted logic only to later disavow it.

The pants the Hebrew young men wore were not undergarments. BTW you have NEVER pointed out that women wore pants in any fashion. This is only in the figment of your imagination. Please give me the BIBLE VERSE where women wore pants. Since you say you have "pointed it out" it should be easy for you to do again.

What I refuse to accept is YOUR OPINION.

You can beat your chest all you want and stomp your feet but you have miserably failed to demonstrate that godly women ever wore pants of any kind. Please give me the chapter and verse of where this can be found; otherwise, I will have to say you are misrepresenting again.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ummm, I'm sure our readers can see my point clearly. lol

Maybe they can explain it to you to show that I'm not as crazy as you might think I am. lol

Buena suerte with that.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Irrational is when you say the Hebrew "probably received their pants" from Babylon then in the same post dogmatically say they were forced to wear them. Irrational is when you post some convoluted logic only to later disavow it.

It's actually not that irrational. I'm not saying that you have to agree, I'm just going to state my case.

The Hebrews (both men and women) wore these linen pantaloons under their inner garments at times. However, in Babylon, what was worn wasn't these plain linen pantaloons undergarments, they were a hosen, often made of silk and were ornately embroidered. They also flared a bit at the thigh. The only similarity they really had were that they were bifurcated. The pantaloons worn in Israel were plain linen undergarments. The hosen worn in Babylon were actually worn as an outer garment, like the pants we wear today.

My point is, if these are to be considered "pants" (worn as an outer garment), they couldn't have been anything worn in Israel (which was only worn as part of the inner garment).

The pants the Hebrew young men wore were not undergarments.

BINGO!!!

Per your own reference, the pantaloons worn by the Israelites were undergarments:

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."

Since we agree that the hosen worn by the three Hebrews WASN'T an undergarment (like that worn by the Israelites), we can therefore safely conclude that these hosen were... traditional Babylonian attire that was worn as outer wear!

BTW you have NEVER pointed out that women wore pants in any fashion. This is only in the figment of your imagination. Please give me the BIBLE VERSE where women wore pants. Since you say you have "pointed it out" it should be easy for you to do again.

What I refuse to accept is YOUR OPINION.

I'm not asking you to accept my opinion. I'm asking you to accept yours. Here's what YOU wrote:

Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
Wrong again.

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."

It is a fact that we know three godly Hebrew young men wore pants and according to Barnes, a garment corresponding to pants were sometimes worn.

I'm pointing out that the very same "pantaloons" (Barnes) that you are pointing out as proof of pants... was also worn by women. Therefore, if these are proof of pants... they are proof that women wore pants too.

Your own words and evidence is testifying against you. Now, if you wish to take back that these "pantaloons" are proof that the Israelites were wearing pants, then no one can claim that women wore pants too. But then you'd have to agree with me, since these were undergarments. No Israelite truly wore "pants".

You can beat your chest all you want and stomp your feet but you have miserably failed to demonstrate that godly women ever wore pants of any kind. Please give me the chapter and verse of where this can be found; otherwise, I will have to say you are misrepresenting again.

Bro, I'm not beating my chest and stomping. I'm laughing because the very things you're citing as proof that Israelite men wore pants... were also worn by women. LOL

You're the only one chest beating and stomping around here with demands. LOL

[Aquila]

You might want to know why I didn't cite the pantaloons described by Barnes as evidence that women wore pants earlier.

I'll tell you.

Intellectual honesty.

You see, these were an undergarment. I thought it might be a stretch to claim that these were pants. Therefore, I continually stated that no Israelite wore "pants". But... if you want these to correspond to pants, I'm all for it. Because they were worn by women too.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Ohhh what's the world coming to?

Prayer kicked of school.
People trying to remove any reference to God in any way or form from the public eye.
"Christians" rejecting the word of God in favor of an anything goes mentality.

Lol. Well the t-shirt post was in jest and just trolling you UCs abit, but since you took the bait. What about it?

Just admit it, y'all are in a religion that makes up the rules as you go, thats why things always change, theres not uniformity church to church, and the oneness pope DKB preaches and writes for years pants on women is an abomination and in violation of Duet 22:5, then y'all meet some unexpected evangelistic success in India and its "their culture".

Its ok, that the MO. Jewelry is a sin, but wedding rings with big fat diamonds are holy, so are expensive watches, because their "functional". Women are taught to have long hair because its "their glory", yet tons of oneness ladies wear hair pieces. Maybe the angels are fooled? This is vanity. No TV, its wicked, devilish, corrupt, profane, but internet is ok. On and on it goes. Theres no consistency because the whole thing is based on whims. Pants are evil, evil, evil, but pj pants are ok, and on and on it goes.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Lol. Well the t-shirt post was in jest and just trolling you UCs abit, but since you took the bait. What about it?

Just admit it, y'all are in a religion that makes up the rules as you go, thats why things always change, theres not uniformity church to church, and the oneness pope DKB preaches and writes for years pants on women is an abomination and in violation of Duet 22:5, then y'all meet some unexpected evangelistic success in India and its "their culture".

Its ok, that the MO. Jewelry is a sin, but wedding rings with big fat diamonds are holy, so are expensive watches, because their "functional". Women are taught to have long hair because its "their glory", yet tons of oneness ladies wear hair pieces. Maybe the angels are fooled? This is vanity. No TV, its wicked, devilish, corrupt, profane, but internet is ok. On and on it goes. Theres no consistency because the whole thing is based on whims. Pants are evil, evil, evil, but pj pants are ok, and on and on it goes.

[Jason B]

Pliny, do you wear shorts?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Pliny, do you wear shorts?

Uh-oh. lol

[Aquila]

Here's some interesting commentary about what we've been discussing:

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Job 1:20 — but on hearing of the death of his children, then he arose; or, as Eichorn translates, he started up (2 Samuel 13:31). The rending of the mantle was the conventional mark of deep grief (Genesis 37:34). Orientals wear a tunic or shirt, and loose pantaloons; and over these a flowing mantle (especially great persons and women). Shaving the head was also usual in grief (Jeremiah 41:5; Micah 1:16).

See, those in the East wore a tunic, loose pantaloons, and over these a long flowing mantle (this is especially true of great persons and women). So, if these pantaloons are "pants", women wore pants as part of their undergarments.

Also, no great distinction between dress between men and women has been found beyond length, color, and embroidery. So, obviously, Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't demand a drastic distinction between dress as it relates to gender. In addition, there was no prohibition against the pantaloons worn with one's under garment for men nor women. General design was the same. But color, length, and decorative additions such as embroidery was all that was necessary to draw distinction.

As it relates to the three Hebrew Captives:

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Daniel 3:21 — coats … hosen … hats — Herodotus [1.195] says that the Babylonian costume consisted of three parts: (1) wide, long pantaloons; (2) a woollen shirt; (3) an outer mantle with a girdle round it. So these are specified [Gesenius], “their pantaloons, inner tunics (hosen, or stockings, are not commonly worn in the East), and outer mantles.”

Y'all have bashed me for pages over these points. These were Babylonian garments. I assure you, I'm not crazy.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Biblical references for clothes are nearly all to the costume of the males, owing doubtless to the fact that the garments ordinarily used indoors were worn alike by men and women.

Smith's Bible Dictionary
The costume of the men and women was very similar; there was sufficient difference, however, to mark the sex, and it was strictly forbidden to a woman to wear the appendages, such as the staff, signet-ring, and other ornaments, of a man; as well as to a man to wear the outer robe of a woman. (Deut. 22:5)

Men and women wore the same kind of clothing, but it differed in detail. They both would wear an inner garment and a girdle and an outer garment, but the dress of the woman was more elaborate and ornamented. However, the women wore longer tunics and larger mantles than the men. Also the women would often wear a veil covering their face. Beyond these distinctions, there wasn't much difference in men and women's clothing.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's actually not that irrational. I'm not saying that you have to agree, I'm just going to state my case.

The Hebrews (both men and women) wore these linen pantaloons under their inner garments at times.
What Biblical evidence do you have for this?
I have heard people say all kinds of things about the Bible;yet, when it comes real evidence, they have NONE. I have NEVER seen your evidence. You have tried to say this but you have NEVER provided proof. Please give me the chapter and verse that demonstrates what you have said. The only thing that makes this hard is your rejection of the Word of God.


However, in Babylon, what was worn wasn't these plain linen pantaloons undergarments, they were a hosen, often made of silk and were ornately embroidered. They also flared a bit at the thigh. The only similarity they really had were that they were bifurcated. The pantaloons worn in Israel were plain linen undergarments. The hosen worn in Babylon were actually worn as an outer garment, like the pants we wear today.

Now you agree the pants the Hebrew young men wore were outer garments. Please demonstrate where a godly woman wore these pants.

My point is, if these are to be considered "pants" (worn as an outer garment), they couldn't have been anything worn in Israel (which was only worn as part of the inner garment).
You have no idea what you are talking about. Where did God ever forbid men from wearing pants? If you cannot demonstrate this then, you cannot say they were never worn in the land of Israel, as if that would make any difference. God's Word is not limited to Judea.


BINGO!!!

Per your own reference, the pantaloons worn by the Israelite's were undergarments:
You once again have NO idea what you are talking about. You agree that the three Hebrew young men wore pants and now you are saying they didn't unless of course you would now argue that they were not Israelite's. You are now back to being unable to hold a coherent thought. Were they Israelite's? Of course. Therefore, your statement is utterly ridiculous. Barnes noted that Hebrew men sometimes wore garments that correspond to pantaloons - his words.

Since we agree that the hosen worn by the three Hebrews WASN'T an undergarment (like that worn by the Israelites), we can therefore safely conclude that these hosen were... traditional Babylonian attire that was worn as outer wear!

Please show me Biblically that the pants they wore were Babylonian - not that it matters. God's Word is not limited to Judea as you seem to presume.

I'm not asking you to accept my opinion. I'm asking you to accept yours. Here's what YOU wrote:

Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
Wrong again.

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."

It is a fact that we know three godly Hebrew young men wore pants and according to Barnes, a garment corresponding to pants were sometimes worn.

I'm pointing out that the very same "pantaloons" (Barnes) that you are pointing out as proof of pants... was also worn by women. Therefore, if these are proof of pants... they are proof that women wore pants too.

You should really try to read and comprehend what you read before posting. It really makes you look foolish. As in the case of the priests - apparently you missed this. The priests were ALWAYS men. SO how you get women out of this must be from the same vacuum as you have received the rest of your "logic".

Your own words and evidence is testifying against you. Now, if you wish to take back that these "pantaloons" are proof that the Israelites were wearing pants, then no one can claim that women wore pants too. But then you'd have to agree with me, since these were undergarments. No Israelite truly wore "pants".

So here we are once again with you stating "No Israelite truly wore "pants"". So you must believe that the three Hebrew young men were not Israelite's. Really? How ludicrous. Since we KNOW FACTUALLY they were Israelite's and they wore pants then it is observed that Israelite men DID wear pants.

Bro, I'm not beating my chest and stomping. I'm laughing because the very things you're citing as proof that Israelite men wore pants... were also worn by women. LOL

You're the only one chest beating and stomping around here with demands. LOL

Thank you for the object lesson on what NOT to do when reading. So once again we see godly men wore pants and godly women did not. Please give chapter and verse for godly women wearing pants.