Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Amanah

So you think these men rode horses and mules in underwear with tunics over them?

yep but the tunic was gird about their loins, dozens of references of this in the OT! Once again if trousers was the going trend of that day there would be no need to gird up the tunic!!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Maybe they were busting-a-sag, I see that a lot.

[Amanah]

The Judeans were thoroughly immersed in Greek Culture because they had been conquered by Alexander the Great, they had adopted Greek Culture. Alexander had conquered all the way to India and Egypt. The Judeans were not living in a cultural vacuum.


***
The conquests of Alexander the Great in the late 4th century BCE spread Greek culture and colonization—a process of cultural change called Hellenization—over non-Greek lands, including the Levant. This gave rise to the Hellenistic age, which sought to create a common or universal culture in the Alexandrian empire based on that of 5th- and 4th-century BCE Athens (see also Age of Pericles), along with a fusion of Near Eastern cultures.[3] The period is characterized by a new wave of Greek colonization which established Greek cities and Kingdoms in Asia and Africa,[4] the most famous being Alexandria in Egypt. New cities were established composed of colonists who came from different parts of the Greek world, and not from a specific metropolis ("mother city") as before.[4]

Jewish life in both Judea and the diaspora was influenced by the culture and language of Hellenism. The Greeks viewed Jewish culture favorably, while vice versa, Hellenism gained adherents among the Jews. While Hellenism has sometimes been presented (under the influence of 2 Maccabees, itself notably a work in Greek), as a threat of assimilation diametrically opposed to Jewish tradition,

Adaptation to Hellenic culture did not require compromise of Jewish precepts or conscience. When a Greek gymnasium was introduced into Jerusalem, it was installed by a Jewish High Priest. And other priests soon engaged in wrestling matches in the palaestra. They plainly did not reckon such activities as undermining their priestly duties.

— Erich S. Gruen[7]:73–74

The main religious issue dividing Hellenized Jews from traditional Jews was the application of biblical laws in a Hellenistic (or Roman or other non-Jewish) empire.[8]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

yep but the tunic was gird about their loins dozens of references of this in the OT! Once again if trousers was the going trend of that day there would be no need to gird up the tunic!!

If they had trousers under the tunic, the tunic would still get in the way. Which would mean they would have to gird up their loins still, trousers or not.

These people were fully covered just as God covered Adam and Eve in this garden. Genesis 3:21 "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

This word clothed meant "to be fully clothed." Though they wore tunics they had trousers (breeches) and belts apparently under them. Regardless the tunic had to be tied up, to run, and fight properly. So Joe there goes that theory.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

we have established that were we not sitting around in bathrobes.

Of course not. The average attire for males and females was largely comprised of an undergarment (tunic, or kethōneth, which eventually replaced the older skirt-like, ezor). The outer garment, or simlāh, consisted of a large rectangular piece of rough, heavy woolen material, crudely sewed together so that the front was unstitched and with two openings left for the arms. Every respectable man generally wore the simlāh over the kethōneth, but since the simlāh hindered work, it was either left home or removed when working by the common Judean.

The me'īl (translated into Greek as stolḗ) was a garment worn over the undergarment like a cloak.

The had layered clothing. But not all wore "breeches" or pantaloons as everyday attire unless their profession necessitated it.

https://prezi.com/7pjn_sk83kxa/the-c...-biblical-age/

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

yep but the tunic was gird about their loins, dozens of references of this in the OT! Once again if trousers was the going trend of that day there would be no need to gird up the tunic!!

Exactly.

[Amanah]

people just cant admit they are wrong, its so sad.

[Aquila]

Eh, the truth is the truth. Even if it disagrees with the given dogma of a Christian sect. There's plenty of resources out there about how the Judeans dressed in ancient times. Yes, they did have trousers. Yes, they did have breeches. Some breeches could even bee let down to become trousers. However, when it came to trousers, they were often utilitarian, worn when necessary or if one's profession necessitated them. They were also a luxury. They weren't worn as common attire by 100% of Judean men 100% of the time, especially when working in the fields.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Eh, the truth is the truth. Even if it disagrees with the given dogma of a Christian sect. There's plenty of resources out there about how the Judeans dressed in ancient times. Yes, they did have trousers. Yes, they did have breeches. Some breeches could even bee let down to become trousers. However, when it came to trousers, they were utilitarian, worn when necessary or if one's profession necessitated them. They weren't worn as common attire by 100% of Judean men 100% of the time.

dogma lol, most people I know think Jesus wore a robe, until I did some research, I wasn't sure. I did the work and proved that Judeans adopted Greek culture, were warriors that carried swords and bows, and dressed accordingly.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Im talking about the word "breeches, they are called just the same as Exodus 28:42 so we see them in history too "And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach." So showing my whole argument true. While some keep saying its just underwear. Not the word miknas which it comes from one meaning means "trousers". So we see here one last time, God instituted these breeches for men. Not only that we historically see men soldiers wearing them as the word geber could mean some type of soldier vesture.

So Deuteronomy 22:5 plainly encompasses pants trousers and anything in the style, they are made for a man by God. So a woman shouldn't wear them is all I'm saying, for they pertain unto a man. Really severely simple.

Lets show the universal bathroom sign again.. This is plainly a gender line, we shouldn't cross.

……….ok if you wanna split hairs the passage referring to making breeches is to the priest! So staying in line with your thought process breeches would only be pertaining to males that were priest!