More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, excuse me, but a colobium is clergy vestments from the 3rd century. Also known as coronation robes because kings and queens were part of the ecclesia. Aquila you are learning as you go, gleaning from Google. Why do I know this because I read your postings. In one breath you make statements against Catholicism, and then offer their attire in an argument. Are commentaries infallible? No. Are they extremely useful to the student? By all means, yes! But the ingredient which is most important is research the available material. Which must be the Manuscripts in their ancient languages. Comparing them with each other to gain the correct meaning. Also knowing how these words were used during the time of the writings. You my brother, are using commentaries as if they have no flip side or contrary information. What was the agenda of the writers. Or the scholars. By no means discard them, but the microscope which must be used is the Bible itself.

Yes, I encourage the reader to Google it. They will discover that colobium aren't strictly coronation robes. Colobium (Roman) and Kolobas (Greek) are tunics that were worn by commoners and officials since ancient times. However, as times and styles changed the columbium remained in use by higher classes and became a more ceremonial article of clothing known as the colobium sindonis. This is the "coronation robe" you reference.

Maybe if you would have read more than just the first couple articles in your Google search, you would have known that.

Same but different? One had a blue stripe and the other had a purple stripe on the edge of the robe? The average? Notice Aquila won't go as far to say that they NEVER wore trousers. Listen, trousers were of pagan design and used in pagan rituals as Aquila has stated multiple times. Then Meshach Shadrach, and Abednego wouldn't of touched them. They would of vehemently refused as hard as they refused the pork (offered to idols) on the king's table. Jesus in Revelation 19:16 is wearing military cavalry trousers.
Commentary is fine and wonderful, but the further you go into a commentary you may find the the "scholars" end up contradicting, or leaving some things out.

I don't remember saying that trousers were used in ancient pagan rituals. I'd like for you to find the quote. When it comes to trousers and Babylon, trousers were common attire, especially among officials and servants of the royal court. They continued to be common attire in Persia too, and please note, both males and females wore trousers in Persia.

Trousers were not common attire in Judea, unless you were a Levite.

Deuteronomy means mild differences? Hmm, blind leading blind both fall into big bottomless hole? No thanks.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is definitely talking about big differences because the writer is stressing MASCULINITY by using GEBER. STRONG MAN. Size 30 neck!!!!

You missed the point, again.

Israelite males and females didn't dress that differently as it related to their common attire. So... clearly Deuteronomy isn't necessarily talking about common attire. This is one reason why scholars have tried to figure out if the text is talking about ritual garb of the Canaanites or the garments of a soldier.