More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Here is a copy of a post with my commentary on what Aquila has been doing.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have one Scripture with a meaning that is debated by scholars.

Originally Posted by Pliny

So according to this argument there can be no such thing as truth because there is no 100% consensus on anything. For example, Acts 2:38 is debated by Trinitarian scholars as a person being baptized because of remission of sins rather than for the remission of sins. Therefore, based on this argument, baptism in Jesus' name for the remission of sins cannot be trusted.

In fact, many scientists, archaeologists, anthropologists and other highly educated people would argue the entire Bible is a fictionalized story. Thus, based on this argument, the entire Bible must be thrown out because someone debates its authenticity.

Just because someone debates an issue is not cause to ignore it. Jesus argued for educating ourselves (Jn. 5:39). Paul said to hunt for holiness (Heb. 12:4). consider this a moment. What does it mean to hunt? I believe in Paul's mind he meant to track down, to look for signs and follow those signs chasing after holiness.

Aquila does just the opposite. He chases after carnality. This is seen in defining holiness through pagan cultures rather than the Bible. For example, the reliance upon American Indians, Muslims, Eskimo's, Romans etc.

As for me and my house, we will hunt for holiness in our personal lives and attire. In other words, we will base our lives on the timeless principles found ion the word of God, not pagan culture. One of these principles is the fact that godly men wore pants. Godly women did NOT.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have the example of the high priest being commanded to wear breeches as part of his inner garment.

You have a second example of three captives who were not even in Israel, but who were in Babylon, under assimilation. They even had Babylonian names. And I assure you, Babylonian attire.

Both of your examples are lifted out of context, separated by a thousand years, and you believe these verses are enough to prove men wore Levis in ancient Israel.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Here is another false claim. Neither examples have been lifted out of context. It has been said multiple times God demanded that the Levites wear bifurcated garments. This is absolutely true. In fact, at one time you tried to say it was a command specifically for the Levites alone. That was proven wrong by asking the simple question of where. Where in the text provided does it restrict other men from wearing them? Aquila agreed he was wrong.

As to the comment concerning the assimilation of the Hebrew young men, I have to ask really? Do you understand what the word assimilation means? According to Dictionary.com, assimilation means: the state or condition of being assimilated, or of being absorbed into something.

Does rejecting the king's meat to remain pure sound like they were absorbed into Babylonian culture? Apparently you must think so because this is your argument.
Does refusing to bow to an image sound like they had been absorbed into Babylonian culture? Apparently you must think so because, once again, this is your argument.

I believe anyone with any level of critical thinking skill can see the fallacy and absurd nature of this argument. The truth is these young men stood firm against anything that would violate God's law. Guess what? They recognized that they could wear pants and not violate God's law.

So once again please demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants. You can't because they never did. Thus we see a timeless principle: godly men wore pants and godly women did not.

Originally Posted by Aquila

That my friend is not only shoddy evidence and lazy scholarship, it is dishonest. I challenge the reader to look up standard attire of the average man and woman in ancient Israel. They will find no evidence for pants becoming common attire in Judea until after the fall of Rome (which classified cultures wearing pants as barbarian).

Originally Posted by Pliny

You have the audacity to claim "shoddy evidence and lazy scholarship"? To call it dishonest? really?
Aquila has claimed that the Levitical bifurcated garments were specifically for the Levites. This is patently false because nowhere does the text restrict other men from wearing them.
Aquila has argued that the Hebrew young men were assimilated into Babylonian culture, that is why they wore pants. This, as demonstrated above, is also patently false.
Aquila has used Native American Indian culture to substantiate his "claims" as well as many other cultures. Talk about shoddy evidence and lazy scholarship! Since when does pagan culture trump the Bible?
Aquila goes on to ask the reader to " look up standard attire of the average man and woman in ancient Israel". This is dishonest and lazy because it implies that the Levites and the three Hebrew young men were not ancient Jews. How absurd is that?!?!
Aquila then tries to prove his point by appealing to popularity. Whether pants were adopted and made popular is not the question. Thus, this is a Red Herring fallacy. Pants may or may not have been popular in ancient Israel. The fact and the point of discussion is who wore pants in ancient Israel? The answer is singularly one - ancient godly Israelite men wore pants. Godly women did not.

The shoddy evidence and lazy dishonest scholarship" is one-sided and it is not EB.

Originally Posted by Aquila

As for all you insults, I forgive you. The truth is, you have an entire religious practice based on so many legalistic errors, you've been conformed into the image of those errors...and not Christ Himself. So, one should expect such things when engaged in conversation with such people. I pray that you find the peace that surpasses all understanding and the grace that leads to truth. Not just a marginal little doctrinal interpretation supported by the circular logic of legalists, but Truth. When you do, I have no doubt that you'll see the man that you are now in a far different light.

God bless and keep you and yours.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Note: Aquila tries to take the "moral high ground" by saying "I forgive you"? Yet, Aquila did not apologize for calling others "idiot's" among other things. Then, Aquila launches into another attack.

The truth is based on the Bible. I have not seen any Bible evidence from Aquila. Just the opposite. I have seen, as demonstrated above, Aquila kicking against and fighting against the truth. The truth is ancient godly Jewish men wore pants. Ancient godly Jewish women did not.




Now, once again, I ask for someone to demonstrate where a single godly woman wore pants.
The silence has been deafening...

This is post number 667