More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You might want to know why I didn't cite the pantaloons described by Barnes as evidence that women wore pants earlier.

I'll tell you.

Intellectual honesty.

You see, these were an undergarment. I thought it might be a stretch to claim that these were pants. Therefore, I continually stated that no Israelite wore "pants". But... if you want these to correspond to pants, I'm all for it. Because they were worn by women too.

Here you go again making false claims - that no Israelite wore pants.
The three Hebrew young men were Israelite's - that is intellectual honesty.

You really should not try to say you are "intellectually honest" when in fact you have demonstrate that you are not.

Once again, the three Hebrew young men were Israelite's AND they wore pants.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Thank you for the object lesson on what NOT to do when reading. So once again we see godly men wore pants and godly women did not. Please give chapter and verse for godly women wearing pants.

Pliny, you're posts are just silly rants. I've explained myself quite well, and even used your own references to prove my point.

I don't expect YOU to change your opinion. I'm only wanting our readers to see the points I have made, because I'm confident THEY will see it far more clearly than you.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Here you go again making false claims - that no Israelite wore pants.
The three Hebrew young men were Israelite's - that is intellectual honesty.

You really should not try to say you are "intellectually honest" when in fact you have demonstrate that you are not.

Once again, the three Hebrew young men were Israelite's AND they wore pants.

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.)

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

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).

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

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Here you go again making false claims - that no Israelite wore pants.
The three Hebrew young men were Israelite's - that is intellectual honesty.

No. I never said that Israelites never wore pants. I said that the Israelites never wore pants as part of their common attire. This is because I wasn't counting the pantaloons as pants because they were undergarments. But like I said, if you want them to be proof for pants, I would love it. Because women wore them too. In essence, your argument proves that women wore pants. LOL

You really should not try to say you are "intellectually honest" when in fact you have demonstrate that you are not.

If you're more intellectually honest, why didn't you quote exactly what I said? LOL

Once again, the three Hebrew young men were Israelite's AND they wore pants.

You firmly argued that what the 3 Hebrews were wearing were not undergarments. Therefore, they weren't wearing the pantaloons that were common back in their home land of Israel, because those were undergarments. You proved this in one of your other references. So basically now you're stomping and fuming and arguing that they were wearing their underwear as outer garments as part of their faithfulness to Jehovah God. lol

Just admit it, the 3 Hebrews were wearing Babylonian hosen. These were a common outer garment. It wasn't a sin. It wasn't a mistake. It was perfectly fine. The were captives.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Lol. Well the t-shirt post was in jest and just trolling you UCs abit, but since you took the bait. What about it?

Just admit it, y'all are in a religion that makes up the rules as you go, thats why things always change, theres not uniformity church to church, and the oneness pope DKB preaches and writes for years pants on women is an abomination and in violation of Duet 22:5, then y'all meet some unexpected evangelistic success in India and its "their culture".

Its ok, that the MO. Jewelry is a sin, but wedding rings with big fat diamonds are holy, so are expensive watches, because their "functional". Women are taught to have long hair because its "their glory", yet tons of oneness ladies wear hair pieces. Maybe the angels are fooled? This is vanity. No TV, its wicked, devilish, corrupt, profane, but internet is ok. On and on it goes. Theres no consistency because the whole thing is based on whims. Pants are evil, evil, evil, but pj pants are ok, and on and on it goes.

Well... Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel! LOL

I cannot speak to what anyone else may or may not do. I can say that I take my stand on what I believe the Bible says. I also think you can agree with that since I have used the Bible in my "defense" of doctrine. BTW that does not mean you have to agree with my interpretation.

That is hardly a "whim".

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Pliny, do you wear shorts?

No.

I scuba dive with a wet suit and do put shorts on over that. Is this what you mean?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here's some interesting commentary about what we've been discussing:

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Job 1:20 — but on hearing of the death of his children, then he arose; or, as Eichorn translates, he started up (2 Samuel 13:31). The rending of the mantle was the conventional mark of deep grief (Genesis 37:34). Orientals wear a tunic or shirt, and loose pantaloons; and over these a flowing mantle (especially great persons and women). Shaving the head was also usual in grief (Jeremiah 41:5; Micah 1:16).

See, those in the East wore a tunic, loose pantaloons, and over these a long flowing mantle (this is especially true of great persons and women). So, if these pantaloons are "pants", women wore pants as part of their undergarments.

Also, no great distinction between dress between men and women has been found beyond length, color, and embroidery. So, obviously, Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't demand a drastic distinction between dress as it relates to gender. In addition, there was no prohibition against the pantaloons worn with one's under garment for men nor women. General design was the same. But color, length, and decorative additions such as embroidery was all that was necessary to draw distinction.

As it relates to the three Hebrew Captives:

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Daniel 3:21 — coats … hosen … hats — Herodotus [1.195] says that the Babylonian costume consisted of three parts: (1) wide, long pantaloons; (2) a woollen shirt; (3) an outer mantle with a girdle round it. So these are specified [Gesenius], “their pantaloons, inner tunics (hosen, or stockings, are not commonly worn in the East), and outer mantles.”

Y'all have bashed me for pages over these points. These were Babylonian garments. I assure you, I'm not crazy.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Biblical references for clothes are nearly all to the costume of the males, owing doubtless to the fact that the garments ordinarily used indoors were worn alike by men and women.

Smith's Bible Dictionary
The costume of the men and women was very similar; there was sufficient difference, however, to mark the sex, and it was strictly forbidden to a woman to wear the appendages, such as the staff, signet-ring, and other ornaments, of a man; as well as to a man to wear the outer robe of a woman. (Deut. 22:5)

Men and women wore the same kind of clothing, but it differed in detail. They both would wear an inner garment and a girdle and an outer garment, but the dress of the woman was more elaborate and ornamented. However, the women wore longer tunics and larger mantles than the men. Also the women would often wear a veil covering their face. Beyond these distinctions, there wasn't much difference in men and women's clothing.

STILL WAITING for that Biblical verse that demonstrates that godly women wear pants...

[Aquila]

A very good article on the topic:

Does the Bible Say It's a Sin for a Woman to Wear Pants?
The Truth About Deuteronomy 22:5
http://www.spiritualabuse.org/actsei...men-pants.html

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pliny, you're posts are just silly rants. I've explained myself quite well, and even used your own references to prove my point.

I don't expect YOU to change your opinion. I'm only wanting our readers to see the points I have made, because I'm confident THEY will see it far more clearly than you.

Silly rants? LOL Whatever. You cannot hold a coherent thought and make false claims...

STILL WAITING for you to provide BIBLICAL PROOF godly women wore pants.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pliny, you're posts are just silly rants. I've explained myself quite well, and even used your own references to prove my point.

I don't expect YOU to change your opinion. I'm only wanting our readers to see the points I have made, because I'm confident THEY will see it far more clearly than you.

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.