More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have one Scripture with a meaning that is debated by scholars.

Bro, you definitely can't even use this statement! Because everything you and I believe are debated by scholars. You are so two dimensional.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have the example of the high priest being commanded to wear breeches as part of his inner garment.

Aquila the breeches of the priest could be seen as he ascended the altar. How was it seen? It wasn't boxers, unless he was bustin a sag. Like I said this discussion is being performed on the fly by you. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have a second example of three captives who were not even in Israel, but who were in Babylon, under assimilation. They even had Babylonian names. And I assure you, Babylonian attire.

You love taking the position of inconsistency and contradiction hoping they can help you? Bro, these are the same men who refuse a meal, because of its defilement. They already had book, chapter, and verse not to use Babylonian garments. No, Aquila they put on the pants because pants were already part of their clothing. It proves this out in the verse in Greek and Latin. Actually in Latin it uses the Latin word for breeches. Early interpreters employed the word trousers which means bifurcated. Any women in the Bible wearing them? Let's see...ZERO.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Both of your examples are lifted out of context, separated by a thousand years, and you believe these verses are enough to prove men wore Levis in ancient Israel.

Bro, lifted out of context? Seriously? So it was lifted out of context for hundreds of years of Christendom? While they may have spiraled around other doctrines they sure understood what the scripture concerning clothes meant. But I guess Christendom needed to wait for Google Theologians as yourself to be born to straighten us out?

Originally Posted by Aquila

That my friend is not only shoddy evidence and lazy scholarship, it is dishonest. I challenge the reader to look up standard attire of the average man and woman in ancient Israel. They will find no evidence for pants becoming common attire in Judea until after the fall of Rome (which classified cultures wearing pants as barbarian).

Reader, please note how Aquila admits that this is highly debatable subject, and then admonishes you to Google it up? Reread the entire thread again. You will find that scholars are mixed on this, the language (if you use more than one lexicon and dictionaries .

Originally Posted by Aquila

As for all you insults, I forgive you. The truth is, you have an entire religious practice based on so many legalistic errors, you've been conformed into the image of those errors...and not Christ Himself.

What would anyone expect you to say? You have to say the above no matter what we were speaking about that is contrary to your belief system. Bro, you actually believe that you are enlightened and people like me are mongrels who need people like you to bring them to Christ? But your Christ believes that anything goes, while you claim He despises sin, He doesn't. He accepts everyone unconditionally?

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, one should expect such things when engaged in conversation with such people. I pray that you find the peace that surpasses all understanding and the grace that leads to truth. Not just a marginal little doctrinal interpretation supported by the circular logic of legalists, but Truth. When you do, I have no doubt that you'll see the man that you are now in a far different light.

There you have it folks, we were discussing Deuteronomy 22:5. Yet, Aquila who called me an idiot because we are men. Is now rubbing my shoulders and whispering the above into my ears. While he offers me a Worldly Ungodly Mess called Churchanity where nothing is accomplished. Where the society around it swallows it up like a Blob. Until even a blind man tell the sinner from the saint.

Good grief

God bless and keep you and yours.[/QUOTE]