More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have no scripture specifically condemning pants on a woman.

You only have cultural examples of men wearing pants and argue that since women wearing pants isn't mentioned it was never done. Although, Barnes and others indicate that pantaloons were sometimes worn by both men and women as part of their inner garments.

This is a lie. Barnes never cited women as wearing pants. That is PURE eisegesis (reading into something that is not there). Barnes mentions a garment that corresponds to pantaloons was worn sometimes and cites the Levitical priesthood.

Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons.
See the quote below:
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. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck. and had long or short sleeves.

More wishful thinking... Of course, when there is no evidence to support the claim some may feel it necessary to fabricate it by misconstruing what a writer wrote.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You never answered the question. Do you believe that women were required to be naked under their tunics?

There are only 613 mitzvahs. God never intended for the Bible to be an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts. He provided principles. Then, He expected the people to take unspecified questions to the priests. They would then teach the people and God would hold the people accountable for what the priests declared.

(Deu 17:8 ESV) "If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the LORD your God will choose.
(Deu 17:9 ESV) And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision.
(Deu 17:10 ESV) Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the LORD will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you.

Those who seek specificity on everything are the one's swallowing the camel for them everything goes unless there is specificity against it. Thus, in this way a person can justify anything not specifically mentioned in the 613 commandments. With this mindset pedophilia is justified.

Deu. 22:5 does not specify pants. It specifies what is worn. This includes pants. So simple even a caveman can understand it. Unfortunately, some here refuse to grasp this most basic and simple logic. Therefore, they argue pants are not specifically mentioned.

The Bible demonstrates that godly men wore pants but godly women did not. This is a principle that can be used to determine whether or not men or women should wear pants. If you want your life to line up with Biblical precedent then, you should follow this principle.

As to your "question". You asked if men and women were naked under their garments. I responded in the affirmative. Everyone, except possibly you, are naked under their garments.

Now, you have changed the question and implied that I did not answer you when in fact I did. With this change in question, you are now trying to build yet another straw man argument by ignoring the real question. That is, did godly women wear pants. I say no and have asked for contrary evidence ad-infinitum. So, if you believe you have evidence that supports your claim please provide your evidence. You would think after the length of this thread you would have done so by now.

Once again, please demonstrate biblically where a godly woman wore pants.

[Aquila]

Maybe we already covered this. I read somewhere a long time ago that the verse was about perversion. The way it was interpreted was...

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

Has anyone else heard this interpretation???

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

This is a lie. Barnes never cited women as wearing pants. That is PURE eisegesis (reading into something that is not there). Barnes mentions a garment that corresponds to pantaloons was worn sometimes and cites the Levitical priesthood.

Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons.
See the quote below:
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. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck. and had long or short sleeves.

More wishful thinking... Of course, when there is no evidence to support the claim some may feel it necessary to fabricate it by misconstruing what a writer wrote.



There are only 613 mitzvahs. God never intended for the Bible to be an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts. He provided principles. Then, He expected the people to take unspecified questions to the priests. They would then teach the people and God would hold the people accountable for what the priests declared.

(Deu 17:8 ESV) "If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the LORD your God will choose.
(Deu 17:9 ESV) And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision.
(Deu 17:10 ESV) Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the LORD will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you.

Those who seek specificity on everything are the one's swallowing the camel for them everything goes unless there is specificity against it. Thus, in this way a person can justify anything not specifically mentioned in the 613 commandments. With this mindset pedophilia is justified.

Deu. 22:5 does not specify pants. It specifies what is worn. This includes pants. So simple even a caveman can understand it. Unfortunately, some here refuse to grasp this most basic and simple logic. Therefore, they argue pants are not specifically mentioned.

The Bible demonstrates that godly men wore pants but godly women did not. This is a principle that can be used to determine whether or not men or women should wear pants. If you want your life to line up with Biblical precedent then, you should follow this principle.

As to your "question". You asked if men and women were naked under their garments. I responded in the affirmative. Everyone, except possibly you, are naked under their garments.

Now, you have changed the question and implied that I did not answer you when in fact I did. With this change in question, you are now trying to build yet another straw man argument by ignoring the real question. That is, did godly women wear pants. I say no and have asked for contrary evidence ad-infinitum. So, if you believe you have evidence that supports your claim please provide your evidence. You would think after the length of this thread you would have done so by now.

Once again, please demonstrate biblically where a godly woman wore pants.

You don't believe that women wore breeches or pantaloons under their garments in biblical times???

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

So we can't call sin "sin" anymore? If calling sin "sin" is legalistic, then I guess I'm a legalist. Sin is sin. It doesn't matter if a person has never heard of God. It doesn't matter if they're a newborn Christian. It doesn't matter if they're a mature Christian.

Sin is SIN. And you will not be saved if you have unrepentant sin in your life. The Bride must be WITHOUT spot or blemish.

Good grief! Heaven's to Betsy! I'm in the twilight zone or something!

Nah, you're just on AFF (right next door to the Twilight Zone...).

My point is that many who claim to be liberal and tolerant are actually Pharisaic legalists at heart, and it shows in their demands when arguing against others.

Ndavid, do you believe people can have the right heart and attitude, wholly devoted to pleasing God, yet be ignorant of various details on how to perform the will of God? And that it takes time to LEARN the specifics of God's will on various matters? And that as long as the heart is right, the person will grow and learn and conform to the will of God as it becomes known to them? And further, that such a person is not hellbound unless they willfully balk at the now-known will of God?

OR, do you believe every born again child of God is hellbound until they are totally perfect in every possible thing, in every possible way, no exceptions PERIOD?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

This is a lie. Barnes never cited women as wearing pants. That is PURE eisegesis (reading into something that is not there). Barnes mentions a garment that corresponds to pantaloons was worn sometimes and cites the Levitical priesthood.

Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons.
See the quote below:
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. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck. and had long or short sleeves.

Speaking of pure eisegesis, you're committing the same offense of which you accuse Aquila.

"The Jews." There is no mention of male or female. "The Jews." You are reading into something which isn't there, when you claim Barnes is only speaking of Jewish males.

Originally Posted by Pliny

More wishful thinking... Of course, when there is no evidence to support the claim some may feel it necessary to fabricate it by misconstruing what a writer wrote.

Rich, considering Barnes wrote "The Jews" and didn't separate his commentary by whether it was male or female.

Originally Posted by Pliny

The Bible demonstrates that godly men wore pants but godly women did not.

False. There is no passage stating women only wore robes. You are reading into something which isn't there. You read about Priests wearing underwear and 3 Jewish guys wearing hose and thought it supports your personal opinion that only men wore bifurcated garments.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

...do you believe people can have the right heart and attitude, wholly devoted to pleasing God, yet be ignorant of various details on how to perform the will of God? And that it takes time to LEARN the specifics of God's will on various matters? And that as long as the heart is right, the person will grow and learn and conform to the will of God as it becomes known to them? And further, that such a person is not hellbound unless they willfully balk at the now-known will of God?

OR, do you believe every born again child of God is hellbound until they are totally perfect in every possible thing, in every possible way, no exceptions PERIOD?

We encourage modesty. That includes encouraging dresses and skirts, and for women who are still seeking the Scriptures and searching their hearts, we simply ask that they wear a longer top that covers their hips and buttocks. Most do anyway most of the time, so it isn't an unreasonable expectation. Those who don't, we still welcome them. It takes time to grow into various Christian disciplines. Modesty can be one of those things. So, I have to say that I firmly believe in what you're talking about above.

However... there are some things that are abominations that are not to be named once among us. If something is an abomination, it is a detestable sin before God. It requires rebuke and spiritual discipline. Who would give full fellowship to another who is engaged in an affair until they learned that it was bad for them? Who would allow an active and practicing homosexual couple full fellowship while they learn about the evils of homosexuality?

The issue is, Deuteronomy 22:5 describes an abomination. If it applies to pants on women, there can be no tolerance after the admonition against an abomination has been given.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Maybe we already covered this. I read somewhere a long time ago that the verse was about perversion. The way it was interpreted was...

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

Has anyone else heard this interpretation???

What in tarnation? NO!

What I've read and understood is that Deuteronomy 22:5 was a prohibition against women trying to take the role of a man as a warrior and men becoming transvestite prostitutes outside the temple.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Speaking of pure eisegesis, you're committing the same offense of which you accuse Aquila.

"The Jews." There is no mention of male or female. "The Jews." You are reading into something which isn't there, when you claim Barnes is only speaking of Jewish males.


Rich, considering Barnes wrote "The Jews" and didn't separate his commentary by whether it was male or female.


False. There is no passage stating women only wore robes. You are reading into something which isn't there. You read about Priests wearing underwear and 3 Jewish guys wearing hose and thought it supports your personal opinion that only men wore bifurcated garments.

Bingo. We have plenty of commentary that states that men and women wore similar attire. And Barnes speaks of the Jews occasionally wearing pantaloons with their inner garments without distinction of gender. It's plain English. What they don't realize is, both men and women wore pantaloons under their garments, especially in the colder months.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

What in tarnation? NO!

What I've read and understood is that Deuteronomy 22:5 was a prohibition against women trying to take the role of a man as a warrior and men becoming transvestite prostitutes outside the temple.

When the Canaanite women would dawn the armor of a warrior and perform their pagan rituals, they often engaged in lewd acts, with an artificial phallus. The men paraded around like women in women's dresses and attire, giving themselves to the women who were dressed like warriors. It was a really debased and perverse ritualistic practice among the Canaanites. And we see the same "fetish" in various subcultures today. An ABOMINATION.

It's not about articles of daily attire. It's about an ABOMINATION.

[Aquila]

You guys argue that the abomination of Deuteronomy 22:5 is pants on a woman... then you soft-peddle the issue and treat it like a Christian discipline that women should be allowed to mature and grow into spiritually.

Which is it? An abomination or a modesty issue?