More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're stuck on silly. lol

No. Your logic is.

The Levites wore "breeches", not "trousers". They were a part of the inner garment and went down to just below the knee. In addition, they were commanded to wear them only when officiating in the temple, so as to keep their nakedness from showing when ascending the steps to the altar. This clearly implies that the command was necessary because breeches were not common attire. If it was common attire among the Israelites, please give us PROOF.

I guess you cannot read? Please demonstrate where I said pants were common attire. You cannot because I have consistently said that holiness is not based on popularity nor is it up to a popular vote. Whether it was popular or not just demonstrates the silliness of the "logic". How many matter. 10, 20, 30? Perhaps 100 or a thousand? Did godly Jewish men wear pants? The answer is YES and you agreed. Did godly women wear pants? NO. If so please provide PROOF. Popularity of attire is a red herring and the only thing you can offer - which means nothing. Your "evidence" is still locked away in your proverbial vacuum.

The three Hebrews were captive in Babylon. They were carried away, most likely castrated, issued Babylonian names, and given standard Babylonian attire, which included trousers (or pants). Babylon wasn't the Ramada Inn where they had loaded suitcases with Israelite Levi's that they wore while attending as servants to the Babylonian officials. Again, if the Israelites had packed their clothes and were wearing them among the Babylonians, please give us PROOF that the average Israelite wore trousers.

See, once again you imply that holiness is based on popularity. It does not matter where the pants came from. It does not matter if it was Judea or Babylon because holiness is not limited to Judea. These young men were godly men that took a stand for holiness. They were thrown into a fire because of it. They were also wearing pants. Therefore, it is okay for a man to wear pants. Now, demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants. It is more than obvious that you cannot demonstrate this singular easy task nor accept the facts.

This statement is just more blathering in effort to strengthen your already weak position because no one said any of that.

The "blathering" so-called is from the person who cannot demonstrate a single piece of Biblical evidence to support his claim. You have agreed that godly men wore pants. Does that acknowledgment need to be bumped up so you do not forget it? Weak can be defined as:
lacking in logical or legal force or soundness:
What is the logic? Godly men wore pants - you agreed.
Godly women did not.
That hardly amounts to a "weak" argument. Now what is truly weak is the person that refuses to provide evidence that godly women wore pants. It is so weak, the only evidence is found in your vacuum of evidence. You see, calling something weak does not make it so. It is simply the wishful thinking of an argument void of Biblical evidence and a reliance upon logical fallacies like popularity and red herrings.

This could all end easily. Simply provide evidence that godly women wore pants. In light of the miserable failure to produce this evidence you are left with nothing but ad-hominem attacks by calling the stronger argument "weak".


The three Hebrews were issued Babylonian names and attire. Prove me wrong. I can prove that it was standard custom for the Babylonians to assimilate captive peoples. Can you prove they brought those Jewish Levi's with them from Judea? What we see is a captive people. And when faced with captivity, they maintained their diet and their faith because it was all that they could maintain. When faced with bowing to the idol, that's when they drew the line.

Stop trying to read into the passage something that isn't there.

Back again to the Hebrew young men being assimilated. You apparently have no concept as to what assimilation means if you are trying to say again that these young men were assimilated.
Assimilation means:
to bring into conformity with the customs, attitudes, etc., of a group, nation, or the like; adapt or adjust:

What does the evidence suggest? Based on your logic, the Hebrews refused the kings meat because they were assimilating into Babylonian culture. They also refused to bow to the image because they were assimilating. Please prove this is why they did what they did. please prove that they were thrown into a fiery furnace because they had assimilated into the Babylonian culture. You can't because it did not happen. They refused to be assimilated and maintained their Jewish identity. That identity allowed them to wear pants without compromising that identity. On the other hand, women did not. Where their clothes came from has nothing to do with it. Maybe they were from Judea maybe they were not. The fact is they refused to assimilate, as you suggest, and they maintained their Jewish identity in the face of death. That identity allowed them to wear pants. No demonstrate where godly women wore pants. You cannot do this simple thing and instead grasp for anything, real or imagined, to try to wiggle and squirm your way as far away from the truth as you can get. Yet, the Bible still demonstrates that godly men wore pants. Godly women did not.

This last statement is so convoluted I am embarrassed for you.

Originally Posted by Aquila

And when faced with captivity, they maintained their diet and their faith because it was all that they could maintain. When faced with bowing to the idol, that's when they drew the line.

They maintained their diet and their faith because that was all they could maintain? You do know that their diet is part of their faith right? You do know this don't you? You do know that maintaining their faith meant maintaining all the Law and prophets right? What would be left out of keeping their faith according to you? Then, you say they drew the line at bowing to an idol? THAT is part of keeping their faith! What are you trying to prove here? That your logic is so convoluted that you cannot keep a coherent thought for more than a sentence? If so, congratulations. You succeeded. Are you trying to say that it is sin for anyone to wear pants? If so, you will need to do a much better job than this "shoddy" piece of intellectualism.

Please go back and rethink this. It really makes no sense at all.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Inner garments for both male and female were essentially tunics cut like this...

Dude, you gotta stop with the drawings.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Jewish women wore these bifurcated garments under their outer attire in central Asia. These were influenced by Person styles and cuts.

Is this supposed to be your "evidence"? Please give me Biblical evidence, which is what I have asked for.

If this is your "evidence" then, by this logic I can find a Jew that engaged in polygamy, got drunk, smoked dope, committed adultery and many other things that most would call ungodly. So, if this is your standard for defining right and wrong then you will have to allow everything and sin will cease to exist because you have ignored the Bible and used anecdotal evidence to set your standard. I will stick with the Bible.

It is funny though. You complain about Jewish men wearing pants outside of Judea (though this has not been proven) yet now rely on some artists rendition of what someone thinks Jewish women wore outside of Judea. SO... it's not okay for men but okay for women? Well, since you have no Biblical evidence, you must do whatever you can...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Is this supposed to be your "evidence"? Please give me Biblical evidence, which is what I have asked for.

Please give biblical evidence of high-heel shoes and pantyhose in ancient Israel. The outcome is the same. Prove that these things are acceptable attire for women with "Biblical evidence". You can't, because they weren't a part of their attire in their culture.

If this is your "evidence" then, by this logic I can find a Jew that engaged in polygamy, got drunk, smoked dope, committed adultery and many other things that most would call ungodly. So, if this is your standard for defining right and wrong then you will have to allow everything and sin will cease to exist because you have ignored the Bible and used anecdotal evidence to set your standard. I will stick with the Bible.

There you go with your conservative delusions again. No one said anything about any of those things here. Stay on topic or find medication, please. lol

It is funny though. You complain about Jewish men wearing pants outside of Judea (though this has not been proven) yet now rely on some artists rendition of what someone thinks Jewish women wore outside of Judea. SO... it's not okay for men but okay for women? Well, since you have no Biblical evidence, you must do whatever you can...

I have Biblical evidence that Babylon and ancient Israel existed. And, I have archeological, historical, cultural, and linguistic evidence from both cultures that indicate that pants were NOT a part of Israelite attire at all (which is why they aren't mentioned on women or men within Israel). However, archeology, history, cultural, and linguistic evidence do indicate that pants were indeed worn by both genders in Babylon. So, odds are... the three Hebrews got their pants (trousers) from Babylon during their captivity.

I can also demonstrate that the attire of the ancient Hebrews (which didn't change much for thousands of years) were actually rather similar in cut and style.

We know that men and women's clothes were not identical, but all the evidence suggests that they were much alike in their general design.

There are many different sections of the Ancient Hebrew dress. Some of these parts are the Inner Garment (also known as the tunic or shirt), the Outer Tunic or Robe, the Girdle, the Outer Garment or Mantle, and the Headdress.

The tunic was a shirt that was worn next to the skin. It was made out of leather, haircloth, wool, or linen. Both sexes wore tunics but they was a difference in the style and pattern. For men, the tunic came down to the knees and was fastened at the waist by a girdle of leather or cloth. Female tunics were very similar to the males, but went down to their ankles.

There were and still are two different kinds of girdles. These girdles are normally either made out of leather, linen, or even sometimes silk. For the most part, girdles served as pouch to keep money and other things that an individual might need. It was also used to fasten a man's sword to his body. Hence the girdle was a very important part of a man's attire.

The outer garment (kesut) also covered one while sleeping and was the final and most important part of one's wardrobe. The male and female version of the outer garment were also similar but were different in design. There were also different types of outer garments. For example, women wore special outwear when they were widowed. All outer garments went to right above the ankles and had a hood (women) or ended at the middle of the calf (man).

So, similarity in attire isn't a sin.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Back again to the Hebrew young men being assimilated. You apparently have no concept as to what assimilation means if you are trying to say again that these young men were assimilated.
Assimilation means:
to bring into conformity with the customs, attitudes, etc., of a group, nation, or the like; adapt or adjust:

What does the evidence suggest? Based on your logic, the Hebrews refused the kings meat because they were assimilating into Babylonian culture. They also refused to bow to the image because they were assimilating. Please prove this is why they did what they did. please prove that they were thrown into a fiery furnace because they had assimilated into the Babylonian culture. You can't because it did not happen. They refused to be assimilated and maintained their Jewish identity. That identity allowed them to wear pants without compromising that identity. On the other hand, women did not. Where their clothes came from has nothing to do with it. Maybe they were from Judea maybe they were not. The fact is they refused to assimilate, as you suggest, and they maintained their Jewish identity in the face of death. That identity allowed them to wear pants. No demonstrate where godly women wore pants. You cannot do this simple thing and instead grasp for anything, real or imagined, to try to wiggle and squirm your way as far away from the truth as you can get. Yet, the Bible still demonstrates that godly men wore pants. Godly women did not.

This last statement is so convoluted I am embarrassed for you.


They maintained their diet and their faith because that was all they could maintain? You do know that their diet is part of their faith right? You do know this don't you? You do know that maintaining their faith meant maintaining all the Law and prophets right? What would be left out of keeping their faith according to you? Then, you say they drew the line at bowing to an idol? THAT is part of keeping their faith! What are you trying to prove here? That your logic is so convoluted that you cannot keep a coherent thought for more than a sentence? If so, congratulations. You succeeded. Are you trying to say that it is sin for anyone to wear pants? If so, you will need to do a much better job than this "shoddy" piece of intellectualism.

Please go back and rethink this. It really makes no sense at all.

You have Bible for the three Hebrews refusing the Babylonian meat. You have Bible for the three Hebrews refusing to bow to an idol. They were issued Babylonian names, do you have Bible illustrating that they refused these names? Do you have Bible illustrating that they refused Babylonian clothing? Or... are you taking a leap of logic and arguing from silence based merely on their refusal of meat and idolatry?

[Aquila]

Which brings us back to hosiery. Hosiery is bifurcated. You'd find that hosiery was actually before pants as we know them. You'll also discover that hosiery was originally worn by males.

Why are pantyhose permitted?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Which brings us back to hosiery. Hosiery is bifurcated. You'd find that hosiery was actually before pants as we know them. You'll also discover that hosiery was originally worn by males.

Why are pantyhose permitted?

you are right Aquila, pantyhose are of the devil, I'm going to burn all mine

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

you are right Aquila, pantyhose are of the devil, I'm going to burn all mine

Well... according to Pliny we can't find a single example of a holy woman of God wearing bifurcated garments in the Bible. So, based on his logic, they must be sin.

[Amanah]

thought the following was interesting information

http://www.orthodox-jews.com/jewish-...#axzz4hvdvSRqb

Jewish Clothing for Women - Described

The Jewish people have spanned every corner of the earth for thousands of years, yet Jewish clothing for women has, in essence, not changed very drastically. While there are small details which may differ from community to community, traditional women's Jewish clothing tends to include sleeves that cover the elbows, shirts that cover the collarbone, skirts that cover the knees and clothing that is not too tight-fitting.

Skirts are worn by Orthodox Jewish women because pants are considered to show the female form in an inappropriate way, as well as the fact that there is an explicit verse against cross-dressing in the Torah. There are rabbis who are lenient on this issue, however.

Tights or socks are also sometimes worn by Orthodox Jewish women, depending on the community they live in. There are also those who avoid bright or eye-catching colors, especially the color red and skirts with slits. Some women will only wear closed-toe shoes, but other women have no problem wearing sandals. In some places, acceptable clothing for Orthodox Jewish women would be shirts with shorter sleeves, and sometimes the collarbone need not be not totally covered.

Jewish Clothing for Women to be unique

There is a biblical law that commands the Jewish people to be a separate among the nations, thus is it also forbidden to wear clothing that imitates gentile fashion too closely. This is not meant to be a mark against the gentiles, in fact, it is written in the Talmud that "If someone says that the Gentiles have knowledge, believe it, because it is true." (Midrash Eichah Rabbah, 2:13) It is simply a matter of being obligated to avoid fads and trends that tend to come up in the world.

Orthodox women who are married are bound by Biblical law to cover their hair, with either a hat, snood, scarf or wig. It is considered a great thing for a married Jewish woman to dress up for her husband, thus jewelry and cosmetics can be a staple in a woman's repertoire.

Traditional Jewish clothing for Women has not changed through the years because its foundation, the Torah and Jewish law, has not changed in all this time.


Read more: http://www.orthodox-jews.com/jewish-...#ixzz4hvfeYgou

[Pliny]

It is clear that all Aquila wants to do is argue. He cannot refute the fact that Godly men wore pants and Godly women did not. So he launches into fallacy after fallacy while simultaneously ignoring the basic and fundamental fact mentioned above.


He is welcome to continue to let his wife wear the pants in his family...