More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

First your wife's Jewish upbringing is separated from Biblical Israelism by about 2,000 years. I don't know what kind of "Jew" she or her people may have been, but actually Judaism today, modern Judaism is as Biblical as Heaven's Gate Cult and Marshall Herff Applewhite, Jr. It has about as much to do with the Bible as the Book of Mormon. They use the tradition of the elders
which were rebuked by Jesus, Matthew 15:1-20. They had a total overhaul from the days of Rabbi Akiba to the Medieval times where your buddy Rambam and before that Rashi really turned up the volume. So, close to everything they do has been blended through their Medieval filters and Mysticism. Nude mikvah? John was performing Mikvahs, we have nothing concerning a crowd of nudists marching towards the Jordan. Nude swimming? Martha, Mary, Jesus, and Lazarus wading around nude? Sure makes the whole thing about Romans stripping a victim bare and nailing them to an open shame have sort of a different meaning. The Crucified man in the loin cloth which hung on the wall of the Roman Church was crafted for modesty. The real crucified victims were totally naked, put to an open shame. If these desert hillbillies were rising up to play NAKED. I guess God and Moses got upset for nothing? Adam? What was he hiding for? What's up with the fig leaf belt for he and his wife only covering the reproductive organs? Naked for the fisherman was his undergarments, his fisher's coat was the outer apparel.

Jesus help you sweetly but help me even more.

Good GOD from ZION!

I was just sharing my understanding. They might have had embroidered baptismal robes out in the wilderness where John Baptized and at the Temple mikveh pools. Regardless, it really doesn't matter to me if they stripped down nude, or only their inner garment (which is still considered nude in some contexts), or went into the water in their full layered attire. And all homes could have had a complete plumbing systems with private baths. Besides, they'd need wash machines to wash all those Livies jeans. Anything to keep our conservative friends sensitivities from being upset.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I was just sharing my understanding. They might have had embroidered baptismal robes out in the wilderness where John Baptized and at the Temple mikveh pools. Regardless, it really doesn't matter to me if they stripped down nude, or only their inner garment (which is still considered nude in some contexts), or went into the water in their full layered attire. And all homes could have had a complete plumbing systems with private baths. Besides, they'd need wash machines to wash all those Livies jeans. Anything to keep our conservative friends sensitivities from being upset.

You weren't just sharing your thoughts.



Biblical accuracy really doesn't matter to you in the grand scheme of things.
It isn't about the Bible, it isn't about the Bible languages, or how these ancient bedouins dressed, or if their women were walking stark naked through the court of the women. Or if they were wearing Yoga pants under their Hotel robes. No, you weren't sharing. If it didn't matter to you as you just posted, then why did you post it? Bro, you tried conservative, you are trying out far left, the way you are going you might end up with Sam Harris.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You weren't just sharing your thoughts.

No, seriously, I was just sharing my thoughts.

Biblical accuracy really doesn't matter to you in the grand scheme of things.
It isn't about the Bible, it isn't about the Bible languages, or how these ancient bedouins dressed, or if their women were walking stark naked through the court of the women. Or if they were wearing Yoga pants under their Hotel robes.

No, you weren't sharing. If it didn't matter to you as you just posted, then why did you post it? Bro, you tried conservative, you are trying out far left, the way you are going you might end up with Sam Harris.

So basically, you're saying that the conservative position you hold only stands if you interpret Scripture in a vacuum and reject all external archaeological, linguistic, cultural, and historical data that might point to the contrary.

I think you just posted something we can agree upon.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

No, seriously, I was just sharing my thoughts.

Too bad, your honesty score is a bit lacking of late.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So basically, you're saying that the conservative position you hold only stands if you interpret Scripture in a vacuum and reject all external archaeological, linguistic, cultural, and historical data that might point to the contrary.

I think you just posted something we can agree upon.

Then if you agreed with what I posted, then you agree that Biblical accuracy doesn't matter to you. You don't care about the Bible, about "linguistics" which we all offered you and you ignored. That this whole back and forth with you is an attempt to kill the supposed old conservative Aquila.

Aquila if you agreed on that, then you would seek an altar. You would stop blaming a movement for your own psychotic behavior in the past.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Too bad, your honesty score is a bit lacking of late.




Then if you agreed with what I posted, then you agree that Biblical accuracy doesn't matter to you. You don't care about the Bible, about "linguistics" which we all offered you and you ignored. That this whole back and forth with you is an attempt to kill the supposed old conservative Aquila.

Aquila if you agreed on that, then you would seek an altar. You would stop blaming a movement for your own psychotic behavior in the past.

Again, I didn't say any of that. However, you did imply that your position only stands when you interpret the Bible in a vacuum without the consideration of language, culture, and history. Sadly, that's not biblical accuracy. That's the narrow vacuum in which cults are born from novel private interpretations.

Hey, that reminds me...

Were the pants that you claim were commonly worn as casual attire by men in Judea made from hide, cotton, or stone washed denim?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, I didn't say any of that.

You said you agreed, then if you said you agreed, then you agreed with what was posted. Are you medicated by a family physician or do you self medicate?

Originally Posted by Aquila

However, you did imply that your position only stands when you interpret the Bible in a vacuum without the consideration of language, culture, and history.

No, the only thing I implied is that you are still the ecclesiastical mole you have always been. You don't care what the Bible actually says, but just care what you are currently doing in this phase of your religious journey.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Sadly, that's not biblical accuracy. That's the narrow vacuum in which cults are born from novel private interpretations.

You mean the one you morphed out of to the one you are currently in? Mr Wonderful, allow to me to tell you that you are still the same religious biped. But instead of long sleeves and a braided whip, you wear Birkenstocks with a cattle prod.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Were the pants you claim were commonly worn in Judea hide, cotton, or stone washed denim?

At least they weren't lace like yours.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You said you agreed, then if you said you agreed, then you agreed with what was posted. Are you medicated by a family physician or do you self medicate?



No, the only thing I implied is that you are still the ecclesiastical mole you have always been. You don't care what the Bible actually says, but just care what you are currently doing in this phase of your religious journey.



You mean the one you morphed out of to the one you are currently in? Mr Wonderful, allow to me to tell you that you are still the same religious biped. But instead of long sleeves and a braided whip, you wear Birkenstocks with a cattle prod.



At least they weren't lace like yours.

Just more insults? Nice.