More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

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

Now you're being irrational. What you're telling me is that since men wore pantaloons as an undergarment, it is evidence that men wore pants. However, if I point out that women wore these pantaloons also, you refuse to see it as evidence that women wore pants too? LOL That's not a balanced interpretation.

And as I've asked before, why was this allowable under Deuteronomy 22:5 if they interpreted it as you do???

If pantaloons worn by men under their interior garments is proof that men wore pants... then why aren't the pantaloons warn by women under their interior garments proof that women wore pants too?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Now you're being irrational. What you're telling me is that since men wore pantaloons as an undergarment, it is evidence that men wore pants. However, if I point out that women wore these pantaloons too, you refuse to see it as evidence that women wore pants too? LOL That's not a balanced interpretation.

And as I've asked before, why was this allowable under Deuteronomy 22:5 if they interpreted it as you do???

You have NEVER demonstrated that women wore pants of any kind. Please give me the chapter and verse.

If pantaloons on men is proof they wore pants... then why isn't the pantaloons warn by women under their interior garments proof that women wore pants too?

Irrational is when you say the Hebrew "probably received their pants" from Babylon then in the same post dogmatically say they were forced to wear them. Irrational is when you post some convoluted logic only to later disavow it.

The pants the Hebrew young men wore were not undergarments. BTW you have NEVER pointed out that women wore pants in any fashion. This is only in the figment of your imagination. Please give me the BIBLE VERSE where women wore pants. Since you say you have "pointed it out" it should be easy for you to do again.

What I refuse to accept is YOUR OPINION.

You can beat your chest all you want and stomp your feet but you have miserably failed to demonstrate that godly women ever wore pants of any kind. Please give me the chapter and verse of where this can be found; otherwise, I will have to say you are misrepresenting again.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Irrational is when you say the Hebrew "probably received their pants" from Babylon then in the same post dogmatically say they were forced to wear them. Irrational is when you post some convoluted logic only to later disavow it.

It's actually not that irrational. I'm not saying that you have to agree, I'm just going to state my case.

The Hebrews (both men and women) wore these linen pantaloons under their inner garments at times. However, in Babylon, what was worn wasn't these plain linen pantaloons undergarments, they were a hosen, often made of silk and were ornately embroidered. They also flared a bit at the thigh. The only similarity they really had were that they were bifurcated. The pantaloons worn in Israel were plain linen undergarments. The hosen worn in Babylon were actually worn as an outer garment, like the pants we wear today.

My point is, if these are to be considered "pants" (worn as an outer garment), they couldn't have been anything worn in Israel (which was only worn as part of the inner garment).

The pants the Hebrew young men wore were not undergarments.

BINGO!!!

Per your own reference, the pantaloons worn by the Israelites were undergarments:

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."

Since we agree that the hosen worn by the three Hebrews WASN'T an undergarment (like that worn by the Israelites), we can therefore safely conclude that these hosen were... traditional Babylonian attire that was worn as outer wear!

BTW you have NEVER pointed out that women wore pants in any fashion. This is only in the figment of your imagination. Please give me the BIBLE VERSE where women wore pants. Since you say you have "pointed it out" it should be easy for you to do again.

What I refuse to accept is YOUR OPINION.

I'm not asking you to accept my opinion. I'm asking you to accept yours. Here's what YOU wrote:

Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
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.

I'm pointing out that the very same "pantaloons" (Barnes) that you are pointing out as proof of pants... was also worn by women. Therefore, if these are proof of pants... they are proof that women wore pants too.

Your own words and evidence is testifying against you. Now, if you wish to take back that these "pantaloons" are proof that the Israelites were wearing pants, then no one can claim that women wore pants too. But then you'd have to agree with me, since these were undergarments. No Israelite truly wore "pants".

You can beat your chest all you want and stomp your feet but you have miserably failed to demonstrate that godly women ever wore pants of any kind. Please give me the chapter and verse of where this can be found; otherwise, I will have to say you are misrepresenting again.

Bro, I'm not beating my chest and stomping. I'm laughing because the very things you're citing as proof that Israelite men wore pants... were also worn by women. LOL

You're the only one chest beating and stomping around here with demands. LOL

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's actually not that irrational. I'm not saying that you have to agree, I'm just going to state my case.

The Hebrews (both men and women) wore these linen pantaloons under their inner garments at times.
What Biblical evidence do you have for this?
I have heard people say all kinds of things about the Bible;yet, when it comes real evidence, they have NONE. I have NEVER seen your evidence. You have tried to say this but you have NEVER provided proof. Please give me the chapter and verse that demonstrates what you have said. The only thing that makes this hard is your rejection of the Word of God.


However, in Babylon, what was worn wasn't these plain linen pantaloons undergarments, they were a hosen, often made of silk and were ornately embroidered. They also flared a bit at the thigh. The only similarity they really had were that they were bifurcated. The pantaloons worn in Israel were plain linen undergarments. The hosen worn in Babylon were actually worn as an outer garment, like the pants we wear today.

Now you agree the pants the Hebrew young men wore were outer garments. Please demonstrate where a godly woman wore these pants.

My point is, if these are to be considered "pants" (worn as an outer garment), they couldn't have been anything worn in Israel (which was only worn as part of the inner garment).
You have no idea what you are talking about. Where did God ever forbid men from wearing pants? If you cannot demonstrate this then, you cannot say they were never worn in the land of Israel, as if that would make any difference. God's Word is not limited to Judea.


BINGO!!!

Per your own reference, the pantaloons worn by the Israelite's were undergarments:
You once again have NO idea what you are talking about. You agree that the three Hebrew young men wore pants and now you are saying they didn't unless of course you would now argue that they were not Israelite's. You are now back to being unable to hold a coherent thought. Were they Israelite's? Of course. Therefore, your statement is utterly ridiculous. Barnes noted that Hebrew men sometimes wore garments that correspond to pantaloons - his words.

Since we agree that the hosen worn by the three Hebrews WASN'T an undergarment (like that worn by the Israelites), we can therefore safely conclude that these hosen were... traditional Babylonian attire that was worn as outer wear!

Please show me Biblically that the pants they wore were Babylonian - not that it matters. God's Word is not limited to Judea as you seem to presume.

I'm not asking you to accept my opinion. I'm asking you to accept yours. Here's what YOU wrote:

Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
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.

I'm pointing out that the very same "pantaloons" (Barnes) that you are pointing out as proof of pants... was also worn by women. Therefore, if these are proof of pants... they are proof that women wore pants too.

You should really try to read and comprehend what you read before posting. It really makes you look foolish. As in the case of the priests - apparently you missed this. The priests were ALWAYS men. SO how you get women out of this must be from the same vacuum as you have received the rest of your "logic".

Your own words and evidence is testifying against you. Now, if you wish to take back that these "pantaloons" are proof that the Israelites were wearing pants, then no one can claim that women wore pants too. But then you'd have to agree with me, since these were undergarments. No Israelite truly wore "pants".

So here we are once again with you stating "No Israelite truly wore "pants"". So you must believe that the three Hebrew young men were not Israelite's. Really? How ludicrous. Since we KNOW FACTUALLY they were Israelite's and they wore pants then it is observed that Israelite men DID wear pants.

Bro, I'm not beating my chest and stomping. I'm laughing because the very things you're citing as proof that Israelite men wore pants... were also worn by women. LOL

You're the only one chest beating and stomping around here with demands. LOL

Thank you for the object lesson on what NOT to do when reading. So once again we see godly men wore pants and godly women did not. Please give chapter and verse for godly women wearing pants.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Thank you for the object lesson on what NOT to do when reading. So once again we see godly men wore pants and godly women did not. Please give chapter and verse for godly women wearing pants.

Pliny, you're posts are just silly rants. I've explained myself quite well, and even used your own references to prove my point.

I don't expect YOU to change your opinion. I'm only wanting our readers to see the points I have made, because I'm confident THEY will see it far more clearly than you.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pliny, you're posts are just silly rants. I've explained myself quite well, and even used your own references to prove my point.

I don't expect YOU to change your opinion. I'm only wanting our readers to see the points I have made, because I'm confident THEY will see it far more clearly than you.

Silly rants? LOL Whatever. You cannot hold a coherent thought and make false claims...

STILL WAITING for you to provide BIBLICAL PROOF godly women wore pants.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pliny, you're posts are just silly rants. I've explained myself quite well, and even used your own references to prove my point.

I don't expect YOU to change your opinion. I'm only wanting our readers to see the points I have made, because I'm confident THEY will see it far more clearly than you.

We can see you have a) repeatedly missed his points, b) repeatedly misrepresented his points, c) repeatedly changed your own points, and d) repeatedly resorted to ridiculous ad hominems instead of dealing with the points. Oh, and e) repeatedly relied on everything BUT the Bible as "evidence" for your "position".

Obviously, you don't see it that way. But I do, and I haven't seen anything from you to indicate your position is even remotely logical or Biblical.

Even if I believed women's pants are just fine for women, it certainly wouldn't be because of anything YOU'VE said on the subject.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We can see you have a) repeatedly missed his points, b) repeatedly misrepresented his points, c) repeatedly changed your own points, and d) repeatedly resorted to ridiculous ad hominems instead of dealing with the points. Oh, and e) repeatedly relied on everything BUT the Bible as "evidence" for your "position".

Obviously, you don't see it that way. But I do, and I haven't seen anything from you to indicate your position is even remotely logical or Biblical.

Even if I believed women's pants are just fine for women, it certainly wouldn't be because of anything YOU'VE said on the subject.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We can see you have a) repeatedly missed his points, b) repeatedly misrepresented his points, c) repeatedly changed your own points, and d) repeatedly resorted to ridiculous ad hominems instead of dealing with the points. Oh, and e) repeatedly relied on everything BUT the Bible as "evidence" for your "position".

Obviously, you don't see it that way. But I do, and I haven't seen anything from you to indicate your position is even remotely logical or Biblical.

Even if I believed women's pants are just fine for women, it certainly wouldn't be because of anything YOU'VE said on the subject.

Whatever. I'm not saying that women's pants are A-Okay. And my argument isn't to convince you that pants are just fine for women. I'm just responding to the focus on Deuteronomy 22:5.

My foundation for encouraging women to not wear pants is grounded in encouraging them to seek Christian modesty. Not in using clobber passages from the OT to scare them into law keeping in order for them to avoid some ancient abomination that scholars can't even agree upon. LOL

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We can see you have a) repeatedly missed his points, b) repeatedly misrepresented his points, c) repeatedly changed your own points, and d) repeatedly resorted to ridiculous ad hominems instead of dealing with the points. Oh, and e) repeatedly relied on everything BUT the Bible as "evidence" for your "position".

Bravo. This is the post of the night. That's why the discussion is completed.
If this was a live debate it wouldn't of even run for this amount of time.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Obviously, you don't see it that way. But I do, and I haven't seen anything from you to indicate your position is even remotely logical or Biblical.

People like Aquila the Bible for the most part is an obstacle. As long as they are doing helping hands ministry in the local food bank, building their ego at the homeless shelters, and adopting children. They can call it good. Also logic isn't a good strength of religion, or religious people. Take NOI. Yakub created white people from a germ? Yashmal will return with Jesus in a space ship and restore the planet to all black people? Seriously, people are sincere with their form of goofy. But that's what happens when people have a bad experience. I spent my life with people telling me stories about how Harley leaked. Well that is because of various reason which were built into the machine by the factory. Yet, you would have to be a professional Harley Davidson restoration mechanic to understand. People who just bring up that comment really don't know what they are talking about. Because they never took the time to find out, or have the right mechanic explain it to them. Yet, they continue with the mantra. They beat the guts out of the dead horse. Same with religious people, and those who have had a bad experience in a certain religion. They have horror stories. Sadly, more than half have embellished horror stories.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Even if I believed women's pants are just fine for women, it certainly wouldn't be because of anything YOU'VE said on the subject.

But he doesn't have to see the fruits of his labor. He just loves reading his own posts.