More on Skirts

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Pliny

The record must be corrected. Historically "pants" were not only known, they were worn by multitudes of men in ancient history.

A quick couple of quotes from the ancient historian Herodotus:
Persians
“Thou art about, oh! king, to make war against men who wear leathern trousers, and have all their other garments of leather; who feed not on what they like, but on what they can get from a soil that is sterile and unkindly; who do not indulge in wine, but drink water; who possess no figs nor anything else that is good to eat.
pp 72-73


Scyths
The Sacae, or Scyths, were clad in trousers, and had on their heads tall stiff caps rising to a point. They bore the bow of their country and the dagger; besides which they carried the battle-axe, or sagaris.
p. 68


Anyone who says differently whether under the guise of "research" or not is wrong and their "research" is terrible.

Concerning "Research"
Commentaries are considered secondary sources because they are full of opinions which are sometimes wrong. Herodotus is considered a primary source.

Godly men are known to have worn pants such as:
The priests
The 3 Hebrew young men

This has been mentioned before.


One question asked is how many godly women wore pants? They certainly existed because men are known to have worn them - godly men. So where are the godly women that wore pants?

The lack of evidence demonstrates the untenable position.

The fact remains:
Deu. 22:5 encompasses the fact that men are to wear the pants in the family - not women.

while I agree with you, I don't think Herodotus can be considered a primary source as he often exaggerated, embellished, and was proven inaccurate.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Amanah

while I agree with you, I don't think Herodotus can be considered a primary source as he often exaggerated, embellished, and was proven inaccurate.

In academia he is considered a "primary" source.

[good samaritan]

Gluttony is a sin, but being overweight is not. Most of the time weight gain is the result of gluttony and wine bibbing, but may not be always. I do think people should strive to maintain a healthy body weight, but that weight is different for many. We can talk about diets and things not to eat but doesn't the scripture say that all meats are good so long as you give thanks.

1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Nutrition is always changing and the things that they said was good they now say is bad and visa versa. I think nutrition is different for every person because not any two people are alike. My body may not process some things as good as someone else whereas they may not process certain foods as well as my body. My grandpa ate fried potatoes in lard every night of the week for the life of my grandmother and that was over fifty years. He is 87 years old and his blood pressure is good most of the times, but some of the medication they give him for back pain may cause his bp to be a little low.

I personally think their may be an agenda behind what is said to be healthy and unhealthy. Each person needs to be moderate, be active, and pay attention to what their body tells them. If I notice after a meal something makes me feel bad or has a negative affect on me then I should realize that is not for me.

Smoking is wrong. When you are camping and the smoke from the fire blows your way every normal person moves out of the smoke. We all know that it is oxygen that we breath. It is plain stupid to intentionally inhale contaminants into our lungs to bring harm to our bodies. I think that God expects us to use some common sense.

OP's are often viewed as legalists, but actually it is liberal minded Christians that are using legalities to say that they are free to do what they want. They say, "the Bible doesn't specify cigarettes, so legally we shouldn't say that it is a sin even though it is harmful to the temple of God. Smoking and gluttony is a sin, but one doesn't cancel out the other. Overeating Christians don't give license for smoking Christians.

[Aquila]

That being said, what we know today about various substances does help us realize that many of these things are bad for one's health. We do well not to eat and drink to excess, smoke, or chew tobacco, and such like. We don't need to be dangled over Hell to have ample reason to not partake in these things. Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 6:12 New King James Version (NKJV)
12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Some things might be lawful, but harmful. Some things might be lawful, but addictive. We do well not to partake in them simply out of our desire to be pure, healthy, and in control of our lives, which we offer to Jesus, being living sacrifices.

And many things violate the law of love. Is it loving to smoke and drink yourself into an early grave? Look at your family. Is it loving to continue something that will bring such sickness and disease that your family watches you waste away in agony? Oh, this is a direct sin against love. It isn't loving. In this it is indeed sin. So if you partake in tobacco or any of these things, break free and live your life in loving dedication to both God and those around you. You will be blessed beyond measure. But if you do not turn from these things, you will reap the consequences of this sin. Sickness, suffering, and death.

[Aquila]

Why didn't the church, or any Christians, prohibit drinking Coca-Cola when it was first put on the market? After all, it contained an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why didn't the church, or any Christians, prohibit drinking Coca-Cola when it was first put on the market? After all, it contained an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass.

Who is THE CHURCH?

How do you know THE CHURCH didn't preach against Coca Cola.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why didn't the church, or any Christians, prohibit drinking Coca-Cola when it was first put on the market? After all, it contained an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass.

Why is the sky blue?
Why is the moon cratered?
Why do some people refuse to accept the word of God?
Why do evolutionists discount creation?

The answer to these questions have no bearing on the discussion. Now please demonstrate where one single godly woman wore pants. Please feel free to use the Bible and not Native American Indians that use peyote in their religious ceremonies.

[n david]

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

"Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

Some things are clearly marked as sin in the Bible. Other things are sin only to them who are convicted against them.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

"Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

Some things are clearly marked as sin in the Bible. Other things are sin only to them who are convicted against them.

So very true. We see this in relation to meats and days observed.

[Esaias]

Question for Bible teachers and students (Aquila, that means you aren't being addressed here):

It is true that Deut 22:5 does not specifically identify pants, dresses, robes, hose, turbans, or any other specific items of clothing. So what is the hermeneutic for doctrine here?

What I mean is, we have a command that is nonspecific. To get to specific applications, we need either a necessary inference, or we are left with approved examples.

Can it be shown by necessary inference from Deut 22:5 that pants are only men's attire? I'm not sure that can be done.

So then, what about approved examples? What is the hermeneutic here? "That which has no approved example is forbidden"? I think that would be too broad (no pun intended), for then it could be argued "there are no approved examples of using the internet" or some other silly thing. So it must be narrower than that. If it is "approved example renders the exampled behavior beyond reproach", then all that could be said is it is permissible for men to wear breeches. But the negative corollary (women are not permitted) would not thereby be necessarily true.

So, what is the doctrinal hermeneutic being used here?