More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

LOL You're a riot!

You don't really see what you've done do you?

You illustrated that common attire in Israel (at least in the first century) sometimes included pantaloons worn as part of the inner garment. You claim that these are pants. However, what you didn't realize is... the articles of attire for both men and women were generally the same. Yes, the women in first century Israel wore pantaloons with their undergarments too. Either way, you referenced a pantaloons undergarment as proof that the common attire in ancient Israel included pants. (Don't lose sight of the fact that these were undergarments.)

Sooo... Now you believe women were in the priesthood? Here is what was posted. Perhaps another reading may help your comprehension:
Matthew 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Barnes
"Coat - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior, here called the “coat,” or the tunic, was made commonly of linen, and encircled the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons."

Priest were ALWAYS men.

Barnes never said women wore pants. You must have seen that in your imagination. In fact the word woman or women is never mentioned.

You proved: Common attire among those in Israel sometimes included pantaloons as an undergarment.

So now you believe pantaloons were common attire? After all the visuals you posted and all the blah blah blah you have posted about Israelite's NEVER wearing them? LOL!

Then you jump back to the captivity and reference the hosen worn as outer garments by the 3 Hebrew captives and argue that these are what the Israelites wore (which you already proved were undergarments).

You are lying once again. I never said the Hebrew young men wore pants as undergarments. I really would like for you to stop lying and misrepresenting what I have posted. I understand you have to make up stuff as you go but don't lie about my posts - please.

Ummm... you're arguing that they essentially wore their pantaloons underwear as outer garments in Babylon! ROFL!!!

Barnes said they correspond to pantaloons which was later shortened to pants. If Barnes is wrong prove it. You have no credibility. You say NO ISRAELITE wore pants then agree that the three HEBREW (Israelite's) wore pants. I could go on and on but it is as pointless as your "logic".

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We can see you have a) repeatedly missed his points, b) repeatedly misrepresented his points, c) repeatedly changed your own points, and d) repeatedly resorted to ridiculous ad hominems instead of dealing with the points. Oh, and e) repeatedly relied on everything BUT the Bible as "evidence" for your "position".

Obviously, you don't see it that way. But I do, and I haven't seen anything from you to indicate your position is even remotely logical or Biblical.

Even if I believed women's pants are just fine for women, it certainly wouldn't be because of anything YOU'VE said on the subject.

[Aquila]

If one argues that a woman shouldn't wear pants based on Deuteronomy 22:5, one can easily point out that women's pants pertain to women, not men.

If you argue that history and culture have always held that women don't wear pants, you're now pulling authority from culture, which changes. For example, T-shirts were originally worn by men and were believed to be immodest for women to wear. However, today, women wear T-shirts all the time. Same with hosiery, etc.

If you want to try to appeal to styles of dress in biblical times, you're argument is weak because both men and women wore essentially the same things (including pantaloons and loin cloths) without any great distinction beyond length, color, embroideries.

Ah... but if you abandon the Law keeping and all the trivial non-sense and appeal to Christian modesty, you can indeed make the case that Christian women do well to wear dresses and skirts for the sake of being modest. If one argues that pants are modest, we know that isn't always the case. The most popular pants for women have low waist lines that ride just upon the hips, exposing a woman's body just above her pubic hair, and if she bends over, one can see the top of her bare buttocks. They are also so tight nearly every curve of her body can be seen. Some are so tight so as to allow one to see the curves of her most intimate parts. No Christian woman seeking to please God would knowingly be so immodest. Likewise, a focus on modesty would cause a woman to think twice before wearing any low cut blouse or top, tight dress or skirt, mini skirts, certain styles of shoes, certain styles of pantyhose, etc.

Also, it becomes a part of a woman's devotional life and sanctification. Something she can grow into slowly if abandoning pants, or any other article of clothing, seems overwhelming. And if women continue to wear pants, you can advocate that they wear longer tops, blouses, sweaters, etc. so as to adequately cover her groin and buttocks. Of course the goal is a woman who is radiant in feminine beauty and modesty. But you can allow women to grow at their own pace and to grow as they learn and experience how modesty feels for themselves.

What I found so very amusing throughout this debate is how letter of the Law focused the argumentation regarding the Law was. Instead of arguing over definitions, ancient cultures, customary attire, etc... focus on Christian modesty and allow women to grow in grace and sanctification as the Spirit leads them.

In my opinion this approach is much more truer to the Christian Spirit of Grace to focus on modesty than to exaggerate Deuteronomy 22:5 beyond all bounds so that it can be used as a "clobber text" to scare women into some sort of misguided compliance to the Law.

There's nothing ever wrong with modesty and grace, patience and mercy, encouragement and spiritual discovery through devotion.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Barnes said they correspond to pantaloons which was later shortened to pants. If Barnes is wrong prove it. You have no credibility. You say NO ISRAELITE wore pants then agree that the three HEBREW (Israelite's) wore pants. I could go on and on but it is as pointless as your "logic".

Pliny... I think you read my posts too fast.

Go back and read them again.

I'm gladly agreeing with you that pants correspond to pantaloons which was later shortened to pants. Because that means that women wore pants in biblical times too. Remember, both men and women's clothing in ancient Israel was very similar. Both men and women wore the pantaloons with their inner garments in colder months and as necessary.

Thank you for proving that women wore pants.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We can see you have a) repeatedly missed his points, b) repeatedly misrepresented his points, c) repeatedly changed your own points, and d) repeatedly resorted to ridiculous ad hominems instead of dealing with the points. Oh, and e) repeatedly relied on everything BUT the Bible as "evidence" for your "position".

Obviously, you don't see it that way. But I do, and I haven't seen anything from you to indicate your position is even remotely logical or Biblical.

Even if I believed women's pants are just fine for women, it certainly wouldn't be because of anything YOU'VE said on the subject.

Whatever. I'm not saying that women's pants are A-Okay. And my argument isn't to convince you that pants are just fine for women. I'm just responding to the focus on Deuteronomy 22:5.

My foundation for encouraging women to not wear pants is grounded in encouraging them to seek Christian modesty. Not in using clobber passages from the OT to scare them into law keeping in order for them to avoid some ancient abomination that scholars can't even agree upon. LOL

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I find it interesting that as far as modesty goes, both sides essentially agree. Dresses and skirts on women are more modest than most pants on a woman.

I believe that Christian women should be encouraged to embrace Christian modesty and to grow into Christian modesty as part of their personal devotion to the Lord. I also believe (and have experienced) a stronger presence of the Spirit in churches wherein modesty and personal holiness are valued and devotionally aspired to. Turning our focus from the law to modesty also allows us to give individual women time to search their own hearts and seek deeper experiences in modesty as God leads them personally. And for those women who chose to continue wearing pants, approaching modesty as a personal devotion also provides a context wherein we can be patient and understanding. It gives us a context n which we can encourage women who do wear pants to wear longer shirts or blouses, to not wear their pants too tight, and to generally seek a level of modesty even though they continue to wear pants. Focusing on Christian modesty as it relates to dress provides a context of encouragement and inspiration, patience and understanding, love and grace.

Get a ministry and get busy, get off your lazy liberal behind and do something positive? If you were a minister, this would be a waste of your time? L O L??

This figures. I have yet to have any of you forum Lancelots ever take their own advice. Interesting little paragraph you have above? Sadly you don't believe a word of it. So, let's proceed.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I have also witnessed the emotional and spiritual abuse that can be born of legalistically approaching the issue from the perspective of the Law.

The abuse you personally witnessed was from you. You were the witch who brought pain and suffering to a poor soul. Just because you can't control authority which was given you. Doesn't mean every other man does the same as you. It has been said that the Old Testament was the only Bible that Jesus and the apostles used. They didn't have any of the epistles, or the Gospel accounts. They taught everything from the Old Testament. 1 Corinthians 9:9, is the apostle teaching out of Deuteronomy 25:4. Why? Because it was the ONLY Bible they had available. Interestingly enough they used a Greek version of the Old Testament. You are caught on this word legalistically, but talk about modesty and dresses as a suggestion? Bro, sad how you turned out.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Deuteronomy 22:5 speaks of an abomination. If this is applied to women's pants, then women wearing pants are abominations regardless of era or culture.

Because we have established that pants were men's apparel within the constructs of the Bible. David Bernard wants to bring up females in India and you bring up kilts, but never mentioning the dying of one's skin, blue? We started this discussion not as an evolving idea which culture can change as its fashions change. No, we have never changed our position. You on the other hand have run from stem to stern in your attempt to "win" whatever. Ego, pride, or just plain old sore loser. What ever your reason is you lost the debate. Now you and I just keep repeating ourselves. The library of books which took thousands of years to compile, have no females with pants. Pants were strictly male attire. That ancient Israelis looked like Arabs, Yemenites, bedouins, or people in bathrobes at a Days Inn. That is what people in your religion assume. When you were in a UPCI church that is what they assumed. No change, you still hold an Illustrated Bible up and say look this is really what they looked like. Funny, how in the 2nd century A.D, everyone was depicted as looking like a Roman. In 3rd century A.D. Ethiopia 1st century Christians are depicted to look like Ethiopians at that time. During the Middle Ages in Europe 1st century Christians are depicted to look like Medieval Europeans. They are only giving you what they know. No one ever painted a picture or carved an image of Jesus Christ. You or I don't know what He looked like. We just have the Bible explaining how people lived, and how they dressed. Three Hebrew children "trousers" Jesus in Revelation "embroidered trousers" under His vesture Revelation 19:16. Oh, and save the commentaries. Don't get me wrong commentaries are wonderful, sometimes extremely insightful, yet rule of thumb is this. When a scholar starts telling you at least three different views of a verse in one paragraph, it means he doesn't know. Bart D. Ehrman in his journey down the rabbit hole, started to see contradictions as he did his own research. Problem was that he only had the same regurgitated seminary information which many commentaries had available. Therefore his research took him right out of Christianity. Or should I say Churchanity.

Originally Posted by Aquila

God never indicated that we should give someone time to become convicted about an abomination. God never said that someone can practice an abomination and still claim to be saved. God never indicated that someone can actively engage in an abomination and still be welcomed into fellowship. The law "demands" immediate conformity.

Again, we are dealing with your filter of being an abuser. This is the only way you see the Bible which was used by Christ and His students. Jesus would of brought the woman caught in adultery to you. You would of been asked if any among you and your group have no sin cast the first stone. You would of crushed her skull. Because exactly what you posted above. The Law demanded immediate conformity. Yet, the law contained mercy. Or else Joseph wouldn't of been able to divorce his wife in private. He had two options. One private divorce, and the other public execution. The list is pretty lengthy concerning abominations, and people have crossed the lines of the abominable since their Christian conversions. Yet, God is good, and His mercy endureth forever.

Originally Posted by Aquila

As a result, there are churches who have used Deuteronomy 22:5 as a "clobber passage" to beat up on women. It is often used to try to "force" women to dress to a certain standard through the fear of being condemned by God. It has been used to disfellowship women who simply have yet to understand or see the deeper reality of Christian modesty. Many young girls were "forced" into wearing dresses or skirts and told that they'd go to Hell if they ever put on a pair of pants. And it isn't uncommon for many of those women to abandon Christian modesty and actually resist the notion of ever wearing dresses and skirts again.

Yet, the whole beating over the head can be found in other churches which never had any dress codes. Jim Jones never had standards, matter of fact he condemned churches which had a dress code standard. You are dealing with religion, and religions no matter which ones you choose require devotees to do certain things. The above statement is also made about groups who require tithing. Groups who reject Xmas, holidays, groups which require members to refuse blood transfusions. The list could fill this post. I'm sorry, but there is probably stuff preached at your Evangelical Apex Network of Community church which someone might find off or restrictive for them. What I have always found is that in these churches which I find to be in error, still gain neophytes. Gee Haw Witnesses still have converts, Black Israelites still have converts, NOI still gain converts, LDS still win converts, FLDS still win converts, Yahweh Church of God still win coverts, Church of the Creator still win converts. I live in a city Shepherding Movement which was Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, Charles Simpson, and Don Basham. I still deal with people who were part of this movement in Fort Lauderdale. No standards, nothing about clothes yea or nay. But people who were part of this movement had bad experiences. Others had great experiences. You probably even know the names of the jokers who caused all the trouble and caused people to leave Christianity. But, I can see you aren't a Big Picture guy. You are stuck chasing and fighting the windmill of UPCI and Apostolic holiness churches.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ultimately both sides of the debate wish to see women aspiring to Christian modesty and holiness. Both sides essentially feel that for women, Christian modesty is best reflected in the wearing of dresses and skirts. However, only one side is appealing to the Law and not Grace. Only one side is appealing to the Letter and not the Spirit.

There isn't a debate.

The pendulum swings far right to far left, and then back again.

We live in the most religious country on the planet.

Even politics (which you are constantly wrong about that too) is a religion. It's a religion called Statism.

People fight like wolves concerning the junk that goes on it that drama.

Only one side is appealing to the Letter and not the Spirit?

I have seen your spirit, and have read your letters. Here, and in the political section.

Time proves all things, and it will catch up with you. I hope you find Jesus Christ and allow Him pastor you. But right now, you are your own pastor.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pliny... I think you read my posts too fast.

Go back and read them again.

I'm gladly agreeing with you that pants correspond to pantaloons which was later shortened to pants. Because that means that women wore pants in biblical times too. Remember, both men and women's clothing in ancient Israel was very similar. Both men and women wore the pantaloons with their inner garments in colder months and as necessary.

Thank you for proving that women wore pants.

You are desperate.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If one argues that a woman shouldn't wear pants based on Deuteronomy 22:5, one can easily point out that women's pants pertain to women, not men.

There is no such thing as women's pants. Just like there is no such thing as same gender marriage.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We can see you have a) repeatedly missed his points, b) repeatedly misrepresented his points, c) repeatedly changed your own points, and d) repeatedly resorted to ridiculous ad hominems instead of dealing with the points. Oh, and e) repeatedly relied on everything BUT the Bible as "evidence" for your "position".

Bravo. This is the post of the night. That's why the discussion is completed.
If this was a live debate it wouldn't of even run for this amount of time.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Obviously, you don't see it that way. But I do, and I haven't seen anything from you to indicate your position is even remotely logical or Biblical.

People like Aquila the Bible for the most part is an obstacle. As long as they are doing helping hands ministry in the local food bank, building their ego at the homeless shelters, and adopting children. They can call it good. Also logic isn't a good strength of religion, or religious people. Take NOI. Yakub created white people from a germ? Yashmal will return with Jesus in a space ship and restore the planet to all black people? Seriously, people are sincere with their form of goofy. But that's what happens when people have a bad experience. I spent my life with people telling me stories about how Harley leaked. Well that is because of various reason which were built into the machine by the factory. Yet, you would have to be a professional Harley Davidson restoration mechanic to understand. People who just bring up that comment really don't know what they are talking about. Because they never took the time to find out, or have the right mechanic explain it to them. Yet, they continue with the mantra. They beat the guts out of the dead horse. Same with religious people, and those who have had a bad experience in a certain religion. They have horror stories. Sadly, more than half have embellished horror stories.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Even if I believed women's pants are just fine for women, it certainly wouldn't be because of anything YOU'VE said on the subject.

But he doesn't have to see the fruits of his labor. He just loves reading his own posts.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Pliny

No.

You don't wear shorts? Why not?