More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pay attention Pliny, let me help you...

If you wear a pretty pink pair of ladies jeans, and prance around in your favorite dance club, you're in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5 because you are wearing that which pertains to a woman. PERIOD. END OF SUBJECT.

Now, let me hear you argue as to why you should be able to wear petty pink ladies pants because they pertain to you.

It's common sense.

Pay attention Aquila, let me help you.
God states in Deu. 22:5 that a woman should not wear that which pertains to a man and vice versa.

It has been demonstrated ad-infinitum that godly men wore pants. Godly women did not.

Try understanding God by using the Bible.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Pay attention Aquila, let me help you.
God states in Deu. 22:5 that a woman should not wear that which pertains to a man and vice versa.

It has been demonstrated ad-infinitum that godly men wore pants. Godly women did not.

Try understanding God by using the Bible.

Again am argument from silence. I could argue that they indeed wore hose under their tunics as men did during the colder months.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again am argument from silence. I could argue that they indeed wore hose under their tunics as men did during the colder months.

Its obvious you can and will argue for anything without a shred of evidence. You have agreed the three Hebrew young men were wearing pants therefore you agree godly men wore pants. STILL WAITING for your Biblical evidence that godly women wore pants.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Its obvious you can and will argue for anything without a shred of evidence. You have agreed the three Hebrew young men were wearing pants therefore you agree godly men wore pants. STILL WAITING for your Biblical evidence that godly women wore pants.

Beyond the three Hebrews in captivity there isn't any biblical "evidence" that anyone else wore pants, be they male or female. That's just factual data.

Now, you can take the three Hebrews and demand that their wearing pants somehow means that EVERY MALE wore pants and that NO FEMALES did... or you can agree with me. We don't know. For all either of us know, both males and females were wearing hosen under their tunics in the winter months, making their style of dress and use of bifurcated garments rather equal. Either way, we'd both be making a leap of logic and arguing from silence.

I'm not saying this to bash you. I'm just trying to be analytical.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Beyond the three Hebrews in captivity there isn't any biblical "evidence" that anyone else wore pants, be they male or female. That's just factual data.

Now, you can take the three Hebrews and demand that their wearing pants somehow means that EVERY MALE wore pants and that NO FEMALES did... or you can agree with me. We don't know. For all either of us know, both males and females were wearing hosen under their tunics in the winter months, making their style of dress and use of bifurcated garments rather equal. Either way, we'd both be making a leap of logic and arguing from silence.

I'm not saying this to bash you. I'm just trying to be analytical.

Wrong again.

Matthew 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Barnes
"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."

It is a fact that we know three godly Hebrew young men wore pants and according to Barnes, a garment corresponding to pants were sometimes worn.

Also, you are misrepresenting what I have maintained throughout this discussion. Please demonstrate where I have ever said EVERY MALE wore pants. I have not. You are lying. I have also never said NO FEMALES wore pants. That is also a lie. Females did historically wear pants such as in Persia. What I have said and maintained throughout is that godly men did wear pants and godly women did not. I have also demonstrated where godly men wore pants - you agreed - and I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for you to provide evidence of a godly woman wearing pants.

You can justify yourself anyway you like, that is your prerogative. However, do not misrepresent what I have maintained throughout the discussion.

You are not being "analytical" when you reject the evidence. The evidence presents information that demonstrates that godly men wore pants and there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that godly women did.

Dress it up anyway you want, maybe it will help you sleep at night.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Wrong again.

Matthew 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Barnes
"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."

It is a fact that we know three godly Hebrew young men wore pants and according to Barnes, a garment corresponding to pants were sometimes worn.

Hold on, with me. Slow down.

You'll discover that scholars are rather agreed that the style of dress, and corresponding articles of clothing (between both male and female) among the Israelites were very similar. Their only difference was size, length, color, and embroidery. Every Israelite, both male and female, wore two principle garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior was indeed a tunic. And yes, linen was the most common material of this inner garment. It did encircle the whole body and it extended down to the knees. And yes, "SOMETIMES", beneath this garment there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons. These were typically only worn in the colder months. And... these pantaloons were worn by both male and females. In fact, these pantaloons are the predecessors of the hosiery that was worn by both men and women until around the 19th century. It was during the industrial revolution that hosiery was largely abandoned by males and actual trousers became the social norm. Women continue to wear hosiery under their garments to this very day.

So, if the text you cited above is used as a proof text to affirm that pants (pantaloons) were worn by men...it also affirms that pants (pantaloons) were worn by women. Because during the colder seasons, both men and women wore these pantaloons under their interior garments.

Also, you are misrepresenting what I have maintained throughout this discussion. Please demonstrate where I have ever said EVERY MALE wore pants. I have not. You are lying. I have also never said NO FEMALES wore pants. That is also a lie. Females did historically wear pants such as in Persia. What I have said and maintained throughout is that godly men did wear pants and godly women did not. I have also demonstrated where godly men wore pants - you agreed - and I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for you to provide evidence of a godly woman wearing pants.

Please read my previous comment.

You can justify yourself anyway you like, that is your prerogative. However, do not misrepresent what I have maintained throughout the discussion.

My intentions are not to misrepresent what you're saying.

You are not being "analytical" when you reject the evidence. The evidence presents information that demonstrates that godly men wore pants and there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that godly women did.

I'm not rejecting evidence.

I accept that the Levites wore breeches (shorts).

I accept that the three captive Hebrews wore hosen.

I am even accepting that it wasn't uncommon for Israelites to wear pantaloons under their inner garments (I've always agreed to this). However, since both males and females wore these pantaloons, are you sure you want to use this as evidence of the wearing of pants? I've mentioned this several times already, but I think nobody really caught it. I was trying to be intellectually honest by acknowledging that the pantaloons worn do not qualify as pants because they were under garments. However, if you want to make them evidence of pants, I'm all for it. Because it would serve as evidence that women wore pants too.

Dress it up anyway you want, maybe it will help you sleep at night.

Loose sleep over the evolution of pants? lol I don't see it as a major issue. You guys do.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Hold on, with me. Slow down.

You'll discover that scholars are rather agreed that the style of dress, and corresponding articles of clothing, between male and female among the Israelites were very similar. Their only difference was size, length, color, and embroidery. Every Israelite, both male and female, wore two principle garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior was indeed a tunic. And yes, linen was the most common material of this inner garment. It did encircle the whole body and it extended down to the knees. And yes, "SOMETIMES", beneath this garment there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons. These were typically only worn in the colder months. And... these pantaloons were worn by both male and females.

GREAT! You should have NO problem demonstrating a godly woman wearing pants. STILL WAITING.

In fact, these pantaloons are the predecessors hosiery that was worn by both men and women until around the 19th century. It was during the industrial revolution that hosiery was largely abandoned by males and actual trousers became the social norm. Women continue to wear hosiery under their garments to this very day.

So, if the text you cited above is used as a proof text to affirm that pants (pantaloons) were worn by men...it also affirms that they were worn by women. Because during the colder seasons, both men and women wore these pantaloons under their interior garments.

No. That is your assumption based on silence. We KNOW godly men wore pants. We are STILL WAITING for YOU to demonstrate godly women wore pants.

Please read my last comment.

My intentions are not to misrepresent what you're saying.

Really? The why do so?

I'm not rejecting evidence.
Indeed you have and do.

I accept that the Levites wore breeches (shorts).

I accept that the three captive Hebrews wore hosen.

I am now even accepting that it wasn't uncommon for Israelites to wear pantaloons under their inner garments. However, since both males and females wore these pantaloons, are you sure you want to use this as evidence of the wearing of pants? I've mentioned this several times already, but I think nobody really caught it. I was trying to be intellectually honest by acknowledging that the pantaloons worn do not qualify as pants because they were under garments. However, if you want to make them evidence of pants, I'm all for it. Because it would serve as evidence that women wore pants too.

STILL WAITING for you to demonstrate just ONE godly woman wearing pants.

Loose sleep over the evolution of pants? lol I don't see it as a major issue. You guys do.

God's Word is not an issue for you? Makes sense due to your lack of Biblical evidence demonstrating that godly women wore pants.