More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, it's been thoroughly established that according to the Bible, the only people to wear breeches, trousers, pants etc were males.

Yes, the Livites wore breeches. There is no evidence that trousers were worn by the average Israelite, male or female. In fact, archaeological evidence and history supports that trousers were never worn as common attire by males or females in ancient Israel. Trousers are only mentioned once as an attire in relation to the Jews of the Babylonian captivity, Babylon being known to have had trousers as part of common attire.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes, the Livites wore breeches. There is no evidence that trousers were worn by the average Israelite, male or female. Trousers are only mentioned once as an attire in relation to the Jews of the Babylonian captivity, Babylon being known to have had trousers as part of common attire.

The argument being made is not that "trousers were worn by the average Israelite". Proving that trousers were not worn by the average Israelite proves nothing in this discussion, that's the point you are refusing to notice.

The three Hebrew boys in Babylon has already been addressed, it has been shown that it is unlikely they were wearing Babylonian attire, on the basis of their previous stand against Babylonian food and their then-current stand against Babylonian idolatry.

So, once again:

Well, it's been thoroughly established that according to the Bible, the only people to wear breeches, trousers, pants etc were males.

This should be sufficient to say that breeches, trousers, pants are men's apparel according to the Bible. And since the Bible is the record of Divine Revelation, and since there is no other authoritative record of Divine Revelation besides the Bible, it follows that the Biblical record on any particular subject is the Divine Revelation on that subject.

Which means that God has indeed given His opinion concerning whether or not pants, breeches, trousers, etc are "men's apparel", does it not? It doesn't matter what the Comanches, Eskimos, Arabs, Punjabis, Scotts, Irish, Goths, or Han Chinese did, felt, thought, believed, or practiced. So far, we have God revealing His opinion on the subject of pants, trousers, and breeches. And the record of that opinion is that only men wore them, thus making them men's apparel per the Bible.

Anyone who wishes to demonstrate that women's pants are sanctioned by Scripture, may do so now. Please remember however that data outside the Bible is irrelevent unless it helps explain or demonstrate something already in the Bible. Medo-Persian women dressing like men and riding horses like their husbands does not shed light on the Biblical data. Foreign, nonbiblical definitions of gender specific apparel does not determine what the biblical definitions or examples of gender specific apparel are.

So, if you believe women's pants are Biblically authorised, you would need to show that women's pants are biblically authorised. Or show that women in the Bible wore pants. And that God did not disapprove of them doing so.

The only other option is to demonstrate a different hermeneutic that is Biblical and consistent, and which would lead to the conclusion that women's pants are indeed allowed, but for some reason I haven't seen any evidence that the pro-women's pants crowd has a clue how to do that.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The argument being made is not that "trousers were worn by the average Israelite". Proving that trousers were not worn by the average Israelite proves nothing in this discussion, that's the point you are refusing to notice.

The three Hebrew boys in Babylon has already been addressed, it has been shown that it is unlikely they were wearing Babylonian attire, on the basis of their previous stand against Babylonian food and their then-current stand against Babylonian idolatry.

So, once again:

Well, it's been thoroughly established that according to the Bible, the only people to wear breeches, trousers, pants etc were males.

This should be sufficient to say that breeches, trousers, pants are men's apparel according to the Bible. And since the Bible is the record of Divine Revelation, and since there is no other authoritative record of Divine Revelation besides the Bible, it follows that the Biblical record on any particular subject is the Divine Revelation on that subject.

Which means that God has indeed given His opinion concerning whether or not pants, breeches, trousers, etc are "men's apparel", does it not? It doesn't matter what the Comanches, Eskimos, Arabs, Punjabis, Scotts, Irish, Goths, or Han Chinese did, felt, thought, believed, or practiced. So far, we have God revealing His opinion on the subject of pants, trousers, and breeches. And the record of that opinion is that only men wore them, thus making them men's apparel per the Bible.

Anyone who wishes to demonstrate that women's pants are sanctioned by Scripture, may do so now. Please remember however that data outside the Bible is irrelevent unless it helps explain or demonstrate something already in the Bible. Medo-Persian women dressing like men and riding horses like their husbands does not shed light on the Biblical data. Foreign, nonbiblical definitions of gender specific apparel does not determine what the biblical definitions or examples of gender specific apparel are.

So, if you believe women's pants are Biblically authorised, you would need to show that women's pants are biblically authorised. Or show that women in the Bible wore pants. And that God did not disapprove of them doing so.

The only other option is to demonstrate a different hermeneutic that is Biblical and consistent, and which would lead to the conclusion that women's pants are indeed allowed, but for some reason I haven't seen any evidence that the pro-women's pants crowd has a clue how to do that.

Bro, your Kung Fu is very good!

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The argument being made is not that "trousers were worn by the average Israelite". Proving that trousers were not worn by the average Israelite proves nothing in this discussion, that's the point you are refusing to notice.

The three Hebrew boys in Babylon has already been addressed, it has been shown that it is unlikely they were wearing Babylonian attire, on the basis of their previous stand against Babylonian food and their then-current stand against Babylonian idolatry.

So, once again:

Well, it's been thoroughly established that according to the Bible, the only people to wear breeches, trousers, pants etc were males.

This should be sufficient to say that breeches, trousers, pants are men's apparel according to the Bible. And since the Bible is the record of Divine Revelation, and since there is no other authoritative record of Divine Revelation besides the Bible, it follows that the Biblical record on any particular subject is the Divine Revelation on that subject.

Which means that God has indeed given His opinion concerning whether or not pants, breeches, trousers, etc are "men's apparel", does it not? It doesn't matter what the Comanches, Eskimos, Arabs, Punjabis, Scotts, Irish, Goths, or Han Chinese did, felt, thought, believed, or practiced. So far, we have God revealing His opinion on the subject of pants, trousers, and breeches. And the record of that opinion is that only men wore them, thus making them men's apparel per the Bible.

Anyone who wishes to demonstrate that women's pants are sanctioned by Scripture, may do so now. Please remember however that data outside the Bible is irrelevent unless it helps explain or demonstrate something already in the Bible. Medo-Persian women dressing like men and riding horses like their husbands does not shed light on the Biblical data. Foreign, nonbiblical definitions of gender specific apparel does not determine what the biblical definitions or examples of gender specific apparel are.

So, if you believe women's pants are Biblically authorised, you would need to show that women's pants are biblically authorised. Or show that women in the Bible wore pants. And that God did not disapprove of them doing so.

The only other option is to demonstrate a different hermeneutic that is Biblical and consistent, and which would lead to the conclusion that women's pants are indeed allowed, but for some reason I haven't seen any evidence that the pro-women's pants crowd has a clue how to do that.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, your Kung Fu is very good!

Amen