More on Skirts

[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.

[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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This is quite simple.

Pants according to scripture were worn by men, military Revelation 19:16, three Hebrew men Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego, Daniel 3:21, and Levitical priest Leviticus 6:10. So, while it doesn't give us a laundry list we totally understand that as far as the Bible is concerned pants weren't women wear.

Simple, and easy.

[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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

None of those references mentioned "pants". And you argue that the males in Israel wore "pants" under their garments. Do you have Scripture stating so?

Seriously?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Revelation 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: king of kings and lord of lords. It wasn't a naked thigh, it was part of His vestures, which were the pants.

Daniel 3:21

So these men, wearing their robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace. They were wearing their pants under their robes.

Men wore pants, women did not.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

He's greatly exaggerating things to beat on his moralistic chest. He's not even trying to have an intellectual conversation on the issues. lol

It is impossible to have an intellectual conversation with a mental midget... Now go beat "your proverbial chest" to someone else who does not care about the Bible.

Let's talk about "exaggeration":

Your "evidence"
You know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy etc.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I knew a fourth generation Apostolic Pentecostal. This young man's great-grandfather was an Apostolic Pentecostal back when the movement was just taking off. He was a farmer. He faithful attended church, read his Bible, raised his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and... smoked a pipe. My friend's grandfather (second generation Apostolic) smoked a pipe also, but taught his children against it because it was proven that smoking tobacco was bad for one's health. My friend's father (third generation Apostolic) never smoked. And of course, my friend doesn't smoke.

Then there is the "special note:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Special note, it was an almost universal practice throughout the Middle East in Christ's day to chew khat after large meals. It was chewed during after dinner fellowship and helped to clean teeth. The only problem is that khat contains a monoamine alkaloid called cathinone, an amphetamine-like stimulant. While it was very common throughout the Middle East for thousands of years... today it is considered a controlled substance.

talk about "exaggeration". this is called hyperbole.



My so-called exaggeration has been the presentation of facts. For example:

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.

Apparently quoting an ancient historian and using the Bible is an exaggeration that imposes a 21st century opinion onto the scripture.

Originally Posted by Aquila

My point is, you act like all of human history is dependent upon and beholden to your limited 21st century opinions and interpretations.

For this to be true Herodotus would have to be considered a prophet. LOL Talk about exaggeration!

Then there is this:

Originally Posted by Aquila

They'd then awaken, have some full strength wine, or diluted wine (because the water wasn't always safe to drink), and part ways. They'd be headed home or out to wrap up some last minute details of living. The alcohol content of the wine actually helped kill the bacteria.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. In Roman and Grecian society women did not drink wine except on special occasions. I have also heard the argument about the alcohol making the water potable yet I have never seen anyone document it. Instead it appears to be an old-wives tale. Also, "wine" was never drank "full strength". It was always diluted with three parts water (average). Additionally, the wine of the first century is nothing close to the "wine" of today. People in that part of the world use the same water table that was there way back when - people today do not use alcohol to make the water potable today. Why would they have to then?

Much more could be said...

If you want to have an intellectual discussion start by using intelligence. Don't throw out accusations without backing up the assertion.

Start by providing evidence that godly women wore pants.
Please feel free to use the Bible instead of Native American Culture or Islamic culture.

[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.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Be careful now... You will be accused of exaggerating and imposing a 21st century mindset on the Bible.

How dare you use the Bible to determine doctrine! You should just "feel" after the spirit. Live and let live - don't be sooo judgmental!

[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?