More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Looking back, my years in that church were the worst years of my life.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Looking back, my years in that church were the worst years of my life.

[Jason B]

Wow, y'all still going at this?

It's amazing that people will fight tooth and nail to assert that a woman who wears a pair of slacks is an abomination and deserves to burn in hell forever.

What you say EB about the Russian orthodox arguing over tassels while the communists took over their country?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Wow, y'all still going at this?

It was clear from post one, ILG and Aquilla are right. Benincasa, Esaias, and Pliny are wrong.

There. Done.

Ironically after 600 plus posts you can't even spell the nick for the guy who is your hero.

Sweet love of God help us all.

[Aquila]

Well, the conservatives on this topic have proven that the high priest wore breeches as part of the inner garment. The length of those breeches have been debated. They have also proven that the three Hebrews in Daniel wore trousers. The nature of those trousers have been debated.

They then make a leap of logic. They say that if the high priest wore breeches and the three Hebrews wore trousers, then every Israelite male wore trousers.

They have yet to prove that the average Israelite male wore trousers as part of their casual dress. I contend at the time Deuteronomy 22:5 was written, no Israelite, male or female, wore trousers.

From Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible, by J. I. Packer, M. C. Tenney, editors, page 484 --
"Among the Hebrews breeches were worn only by the priests. In some neighboring countries, both breeches and trousers were worn by common man."

I also contend that trousers were not even popular attire among the Jews during the time of Christ. In fact, I contend that the styles that men and women did wear were quite similar:

From Atlas of the Bible, by Reader’s Digest --
Page 16 -- "In the time of Jesus, Jews of both sexes wore a linen undergarment and a woolen tunic that covered the body from the lower neck to well below the knees. Over this was draped a cloak that served variously as topcoat, blanket, bedroll, carpet, and even as collateral for loans -- provided the borrower was allowed the used of it at night. To keep the voluminous tunic from billowing awkwardly, men and women wore belts of rope, leather, or cloth, sometimes highly decorated."

From The Lion Encyclopedia of the Bible, by Reader’s Digest, page 169 --
"The first thing a man put on was either a loincloth or a short skirt from waist to knee. This was all he wore when he was doing heavy work.
"Over the top of this came a shirt or tunic made of wool or linen. This was like a big sack; a long piece of material folded at the centre and sewn up the sides, with holes for the arms and a slit at the folded end for the head to go through. The skirt was calf-length for a man and coloured, usually red, yellow, black or striped. A woman’s tunic came down to her ankles and was often blue. Often it was embroidered on the yoke with a special pattern. Each village had it’s own traditional pattern of embroidery. Apart from these features a woman’s tunic would be very similar to a man’s.
"The tunic was fastened round the waist with a girdle or belt. This was a piece of cloth, folded into a long strip to make a kind of pocket to hold coins and other belongings.
"When a man needed to be able to move more freely, to work, he would tuck his tunic into his belt to make it much shorter. This was called ‘girding up the loins’. It meant getting ready for action. A woman could lift up the hem of her long dress and use it as a large bag, even for carrying things like corn.
"Out of doors, a rich man would wear a light coat over his tunic. This came down to his knees and was often gaily striped or woven in check patterns.
"There was also a thick woollen coat or cloak to keep out the cold, called a himation in New Testament times. This was made from two pieces of material, often in stripes of light and dark brown, stitched together. The joined material was wrapped around the body, sewn at the shoulders, and slits were then made in the side for the arms to go through.
"The shepherd lived in his. It was his blanket when he slept in the open at night. It was also thick enough to make a comfortable seat. A poor man’s cloak was so important to him that if it were handed over to guarantee repayment of a debt, it had to be returned to him at sunset."

From Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible, by J. I. Packer, M. C. Tenney, editors,
Page 480 -- "The Israelite man’s ‘inner garment’ resembled a close-fitting shirt. The most common Hebrew word for this garment (kethoneth) is translated variously as coat, robe, tunic, and garment. It was made of wool, linen or cotton. The earliest of these garments were made without sleeves and reached only to the knees. Later, the inner garment extended to the wrists and ankles.
"A man wearing only this inner garment was said to be naked (I Sam 19:24; Isa 20:2-4). The New Testament probably refers to this garment when it says Peter ‘girt his fisher’s coat unto him, (for he was naked) and did cast himself into the sea’ (John 21:7).
"The man’s girdle was a belt or band of cloth, cord, or leather 10 cm. or more wide. A fastener attached to the girdle allowed it to be loosened or tightened. The Jews used the girdle in two ways: as a tie around the waist of the inner garment or around the outer garment. When used around the inner garment, it was often called the loincloth or waistcloth. The use of a girdle increased a person’s gracefulness of appearance and prevented the long, flowing robes from interfering with daily work and movements.
"The Hebrew men wore an outer garment consisting of a square or oblong strip of cloth, 2 to 3 m. (80 to 120 in.) wide. This garment (me’yil) was called the coat, robe, or mantle. It was wrapped around the body as a protective covering, with two corners of the material being in front. The outer garment was drawn in close to the body by a girdle."

Page 482 -- "Women wore clothing that was very similar to that of men. However, the law strictly forbade a woman to wear anything that was thought to belong particularly to a man, such as the signet ring and other ornaments. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, women were also forbidden to use the weapons of a man. By the same token, men were forbidden to wear the outer robe of a woman (Deut. 22:5)."

From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 1, pp 876-878 --
"Biblical references for clothes are nearly all to the costume of the males, owing doubtless to the fact that the garment ordinarily used indoors were worn alike by men and women.
"The three normal body garments, the ones most mentioned in the Scriptures, are sadhin, a rather long ‘under garment’ provided with sleeves; kethoneth, a long-sleeved tunic worn over the sadhin, likewise a shirt with sleeves; and simlah, the cloak; and the ‘girdle’.
"The ‘loin-cloth’ was always worn next to the skin. Often it was the only ‘under garment,’ as with certain of the prophets (2 Kings 1:8; Matthew 3:4; Isaiah 20:2; Jeremiah 13:1ff). In later times it was displaced among the Hebrews by the ‘shirt’ or ‘tunic’.
"The ordinary ‘under garment’, later worn by all classes -- certain special occasions and individuals being exceptions -- was the ‘shirt’. The well-known piece of Assyrian sculpture, representing the siege and capture of Lachish by Sennacherib, shows the Jewish captives, male and female, dressed in a moderately tight garment, fitting close to the neck (Job 30:18) and reaching almost to the ankles. Probably that of the peasantry was both looser and shorter."

In New Testament times, the main item in the wardrobe was called a colobium -- a long, close-fitting tunic with openings for head and arms, woven from top to bottom, often without seams. A cloak was then wrapped over that. As in the Old Testament, the design was the same for both male and female.

Basically, although trousers were not a part of average Israelite attire, what they did wear was rather similar in design and style as it relates to men and women's dress.

Therefore, any notion the Deuteronomy 22:5 demands extreme distinction in style is error.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Well, the conservatives on this topic have proven that the high priest wore breeches as part of the inner garment. The length of those breeches have been debated. They have also proven that the three Hebrews in Daniel wore trousers. The nature of those trousers have been debated.

They then make a leap of logic. They say that if the high priest wore breeches and the three Hebrews wore trousers, then every Israelite male wore trousers.

They have yet to prove that the average Israelite male wore trousers as part of their casual dress. I contend at the time Deuteronomy 22:5 was written, no Israelite, male or female, wore trousers.

Both brother Pliny and brother Benincasa have made the following argument:

Only males wore bifurcated garments (breeches) in the Bible. No godly women are recorded as wearing breeches or similar apparel. Therefore, there is no Biblical basis, authorisation, or approval for women wearing breeches or similar apparel (pants in modern lingo).

You have not refuted their argument.

You have presented myriads of anecdotes as well as historical testimony from cultures outside the Bible regarding various clothing styles and customs, but have presented no evidence from the Bible that women either should or could wear breeches or similar clothing with God's approval.

Please pay careful attention to my next statement:

It doesn't matter what my opinion or belief is concerning pants, breeches, or what constitutes men's or women's apparel. The simple and obvious fact is that you have not actually addressed the actual argument of those you have been arguing with on this thread.

Can you see that? Please try again.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Both brother Pliny and brother Benincasa have made the following argument:

Only males wore bifurcated garments (breeches) in the Bible.

They made the case that the Levites and the three Hebrew captives in Babylon wore bifurcated garments. With this statement I agree. The Levites and the three captive Hebrews wore bifurcated clothing. However, both Pliny and Benincasa insisted that this implied that males commonly wore trousers in Israel. It is my understanding that they didn't. These are the only two cases in which bifurcated garments are mentioned in Scripture, and for the most part, male and female Israelites, and the Jews of Christ's day, actually wore clothing that was quite similar. Neither wore bifurcated garments as part of everyday common attire.

No godly women are recorded as wearing breeches or similar apparel. Therefore, there is no Biblical basis, authorisation, or approval for women wearing breeches or similar apparel (pants in modern lingo).

Since the average Israelite (male or female) didn't wear trousers, it's a mute point. What I wish to point out, however, is that both male and female did actually wear very similar attire. Therefore, the prohibition in Deuteronomy wasn't necessarily about a requirement to wear radically different "styles" of clothing.

You have not refuted their argument.

They've yet to produce evidence that the average Israelite wore pants (which was their claim), and that the average attire was radically different between male and female.

You have presented myriads of anecdotes as well as historical testimony from cultures outside the Bible regarding various clothing styles and customs, but have presented no evidence from the Bible that women either should or could wear breeches or similar clothing with God's approval.

What I have done is establish that pants weren't a concern when Deuteronomy 22:5 was written. In addition, both male and female Israelites wore very similar clothing.

Please pay careful attention to my next statement:

It doesn't matter what my opinion or belief is concerning pants, breeches, or what constitutes men's or women's apparel. The simple and obvious fact is that you have not actually addressed the actual argument of those you have been arguing with on this thread.

Can you see that? Please try again.

Here are Benincasa's and Pliny's statements:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Priest, three Hebrews, and Revelation 19:16, military cavalry wore trousers.
Separated by many generations? Good job you are getting there. You are showing that they continued the practice of men wearing pants for many generations.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Right... That's why God told the Levites to wear them and the three Hebrew boys wore them. I guess they are neither ancient nor Israeli men.

There can be little doubt other Hebrew men wore them as well.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Aquila they wore pants in Babylon because they were wearing pants in Judea.

All of these statements are designed to misinform the reader. It is my understanding that trousers/pants etc. were not common attire among the average Israelite. In fact, both men and women dressed similarly. They wore tunics, girdles, and outer garments. Among the common people, neither the men nor the women wore pants in ancient Judea.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

They made the case that the Levites and the three Hebrew captives in Babylon wore bifurcated garments. With this statement I agree. The Levites and the three captive Hebrews wore bifurcated clothing. However, both Pliny and Benincasa insisted that this implied that males commonly wore trousers in Israel. It is my understanding that they didn't. These are the only two cases in which bifurcated garments are mentioned in Scripture, and for the most part, male and female Israelites, and the Jews of Christ's day, actually wore clothing that was quite similar. Neither wore bifurcated garments as part of everyday common attire.

The bolded is a flat out lie. I never said pants were commonly worn. There is little doubt that other men wore pants. However, that does not mean they were the fashion fad Aquila has accused me of saying. Aquila agrees that the Levites and the three Hebrew young men wore pants. It is only logical that other Hebrew young men wore them as well. Aquila, you need to prove your accusation or apologize.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Since the average Israelite (male or female) didn't wear trousers, it's a mute point. What I wish to point out, however, is that both male and female did actually wear very similar attire. Therefore, the prohibition in Deuteronomy wasn't necessarily about a requirement to wear radically different "styles" of clothing.

Holiness is not a popularity contest nor is it up for a vote. Whether an average Israeli wore trousers is indeed a mute point. Just not in the way Aquila wishes it was. The fact remains (and agreed to by Aquila) that godly men wore pants. Godly women did not. So simple even a cave man can understand it.

Originally Posted by Aquila

They've yet to produce evidence that the average Israelite wore pants (which was their claim), and that the average attire was radically different between male and female.

Again, another lie. The claim is that godly men wore pants. Godly women did not. A "claim" that Aquila agreed to above. Holiness is not a popularity contest. It does not matter if it was a widespread practice or not. What does matter is whether or not godly men wore them. The answer is yes - Aquila agrees. The next question is, did godly women wear them? The answer is no.

The only other question is whether or not Aquila has the courage to admit that godly women never wore pants. If so, PLEASE provide EVIDENCE - not wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Aquila

What I have done is establish that pants weren't a concern when Deuteronomy 22:5 was written. In addition, both male and female Israelites wore very similar clothing.

This is patently false. The Levites were commanded to wear them prior to Deu. 22:5 being written. Afterwards, the three godly Hebrew boys, who understood the Law, wore them into a fiery furnace while maintaining the Law. God was impressed enough to join them in the fire. Thus we have testimony prior to and after its command of godly men wearing pants. What has been established is that godly women did not.

Aquila has said Ancient Israeli's did not wear pants. That is a lie unless he wishes to argue that ancient Israel precedes Moses. Of course prior to Moses Israel was a family not a nation.

Originally Posted by Aquila

All of these statements are designed to misinform the reader. It is my understanding that trousers/pants etc. were not common attire among the average Israelite. In fact, both men and women dressed similarly. They wore tunics, girdles, and outer garments. Among the common people, neither the men nor the women wore pants in ancient Judea.

Now Aquila flat out says I purposely lied to the reader. Once again you owe an apology. A statement that other men wore them does not mean they were the fashion trend of the day. It simply means what it says. If I wanted, I could go back and copy and paste the multitudes of lies said by Aquila. Lies like no Ancient Israeli wore pants. This is a patently false statement. The Levites and the three Hebrew young men were ancient Israelis. Thus, this matter is self-evident.

Again, holiness is not up for a vote. It is not tied to popularity. What does matter is what God believes. In His word, He commanded Levites to wear them and later three godly Hebrew young men were thrown into a fiery furnace in defense of Deu. 22:5 and the rest of the Law. God was pleased with them and joined them in the furnace.

What has been established is that Aquila is floundering around spouting fallacy after fallacy while acknowledging that what has been established cannot be refuted by himself.

Originally Posted by Aquila

They made the case that the Levites and the three Hebrew captives in Babylon wore bifurcated garments. With this statement I agree.

I am still waiting for EVIDENCE that godly women wore pants. The conspicuous absence of any coherent evidence speaks loudly. Aquila is wrong but will go to his grave fighting against what has been established.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Both brother Pliny and brother Benincasa have made the following argument:

Only males wore bifurcated garments (breeches) in the Bible. No godly women are recorded as wearing breeches or similar apparel. Therefore, there is no Biblical basis, authorisation, or approval for women wearing breeches or similar apparel (pants in modern lingo).

You have not refuted their argument.

You have presented myriads of anecdotes as well as historical testimony from cultures outside the Bible regarding various clothing styles and customs, but have presented no evidence from the Bible that women either should or could wear breeches or similar clothing with God's approval.

Please pay careful attention to my next statement:

It doesn't matter what my opinion or belief is concerning pants, breeches, or what constitutes men's or women's apparel. The simple and obvious fact is that you have not actually addressed the actual argument of those you have been arguing with on this thread.

Can you see that? Please try again.

Thank you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In New Testament times, the main item in the wardrobe was called a colobium -- a long, close-fitting tunic with openings for head and arms, woven from top to bottom, often without seams. A cloak was then wrapped over that. As in the Old Testament, the design was the same for both male and female.

Bro, excuse me, but a colobium is clergy vestments from the 3rd century. Also known as coronation robes because kings and queens were part of the ecclesia. Aquila you are learning as you go, gleaning from Google. Why do I know this because I read your postings. In one breath you make statements against Catholicism, and then offer their attire in an argument. Are commentaries infallible? No. Are they extremely useful to the student? By all means, yes! But the ingredient which is most important is research the available material. Which must be the Manuscripts in their ancient languages. Comparing them with each other to gain the correct meaning. Also knowing how these words were used during the time of the writings. You my brother, are using commentaries as if they have no flip side or contrary information. What was the agenda of the writers. Or the scholars. By no means discard them, but the microscope which must be used is the Bible itself.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Basically, although trousers were not a part of average Israelite attire, what they did wear was rather similar in design and style as it relates to men and women's dress.

Same but different? One had a blue stripe and the other had a purple stripe on the edge of the robe? The average? Notice Aquila won't go as far to say that they NEVER wore trousers. Listen, trousers were of pagan design and used in pagan rituals as Aquila has stated multiple times. Then Meshach Shadrach, and Abednego wouldn't of touched them. They would of vehemently refused as hard as they refused the pork (offered to idols) on the king's table. Jesus in Revelation 19:16 is wearing military cavalry trousers.
Commentary is fine and wonderful, but the further you go into a commentary you may find the the "scholars" end up contradicting, or leaving some things out.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Therefore, any notion the Deuteronomy 22:5 demands extreme distinction in style is error.

Note: Anyone reading Aquila's posts can save a huge amount of time by starting at the end.

Deuteronomy means mild differences? Hmm, blind leading blind both fall into big bottomless hole? No thanks.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is definitely talking about big differences because the writer is stressing MASCULINITY by using GEBER. STRONG MAN. Size 30 neck!!!!