More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Hold on...

I already explained that Babylonians and Persians wore pants. You said it was irrelevant. In fact, what you're seeing in this relief is an example of the type of trousers that were issued to the three Hebrews (Babylon's pants predating Persia's). Also, in the past, I've referenced Josephus several times, and you basically explained that his writings can't be trusted.

So... why you acting like this relief showing a Parthian wearing pants (proving my earlier statements) and a reference from Josephus has saved your day? lol

What are you hard of reading?

I posted that the three Hebrew children didn't have a problem because 1 the trousers under cloaks were already in use in Jerusalem. Then 2 the trousers had nothing to do with any pagan ritual. Stick to politics. I see you have a huge amount of friends cheering, or should I say sneering.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

http://asorblog.org/2014/12/15/what-...-priests-wear/

"Helpfully, in the third — second century BCE the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, the Septuagint (LXX), and analogous Greek words were found.The ketōnet is defined as a chitōn (Gk.), which for a man would normally be a short tunic. The ‘avnēt is a zōnē (Gk.), which is anything you tie around the body like a girdle, sash or belt. The linen breeches/pants are periskelēlina; periskelē generally refers to Persian breeches, and in Greek a kidaris is a type of flat Persian turban (see Herodotus, Hist. 8:120).

Thus, the Septuagint’s Greek words link priestly dress with Persian attire. Persians – and in due course the Parthians of northeast Iran – were known to wear pants and waist-tied tunics, with capes clasped with a brooch, along with floppy ‘Phrygian’ caps, as can be seen in the Arch of Septimius Severus in Rome.

So what the Septuagint indicates is that priestly dress was quite Persian/Parthian-looking. Importantly, Josephus – himself a priest – described in detail what he knew priests to wear in his own day. In a passage that is not always well-translated (Antiquities 3:151–58) he tells of how the priest’s feet are put through a linen girdle, diazōma, ‘as into pants/breeches (anaxurides)’. The lower parts are bound to the bottom of the thighs, around the knees. Herodotus also uses the word anaxurides to refer to the trousers of Persians or Parthians (Hist. 5:49; 7:61)."

(Very similar to this roman relief depicting a Parthian (Persian) from the 3rd century AD

Josephus was disqualified as a source. However, this does make the length of the priest's breeches wide open for debate.

[Esaias]

"Roman coin depicting Titus, ca. 79. The reverse commemorates his triumph in the Judaean wars, representing a captive kneeling in front of a trophy of arms."

[Esaias]

"'Judea Capta' coin minted by Vespasian, celebrating victory over the Jewish Revolt."

[Esaias]

The secular world knows more than liberals do?

https://bellatory.com/fashion-indust...estern-Culture

"A History of Trousers and Pants in Western Culture

...

Until the 20th century, Western culture restricted the wearing of pants as an essential garment to men. Before the 20th century, women wore loose pantalettes or drawers under dresses for modesty and warmth. Though actual pants were sometimes seen on women in the late 1800s and in the early part of the 20th century, it was not until the 1970s that the wearing of trousers by women was accepted for business or dress occasions.

The phrase "who wears the pants in the family," refers to the head of that family and equates the wearing of pants with power and masculinity."

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The secular world knows more than liberals do?

https://bellatory.com/fashion-indust...estern-Culture

"A History of Trousers and Pants in Western Culture

...

Until the 20th century, Western culture restricted the wearing of pants as an essential garment to men.[/B] Before the 20th century, women wore loose pantalettes or drawers under dresses for modesty and warmth. Though actual pants were sometimes seen on women in the late 1800s and in the early part of the 20th century, it was not until the 1970s that the wearing of trousers by women was accepted for business or dress occasions.

The phrase "who wears the pants in the family," refers to the head of that family and equates the wearing of pants with power and masculinity."

Do you know how "Western" culture evolved to restricting pants as an essential garment for women? I'll get you pointed in the right direction. The Romans thought that pants were barbaric, and for the most part, pants never really caught on as an essential garment for either gender. I'll let you take it from there.

What I referred to was Near Eastern culture. In Babylon and Persia, pants were worn by both men and women.

[Esaias]

"Until 1970 it was not fashionable and sometimes against the law for women to wear pants in offices, classrooms, and restaurants in the U.S."

https://www.factmonster.com/cool-stu...ousers-history

[Evang.Benincasa]

Aquila doesn't care. I have been reading his posts over in the political section. He wants to be Harvey Milk.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"Until 1970 it was not fashionable and sometimes against the law for women to wear pants in offices, classrooms, and restaurants in the U.S."

https://www.factmonster.com/cool-stu...ousers-history

But culture isn't Bible, remember?

[Aquila]

I would like to recommend that any readers reading this thread take the time to read the article posted by Esaias. The link is here:

https://bellatory.com/fashion-indust...estern-Culture

One of the statements made in this article was,

Before the 20th century, women wore loose pantalettes or drawers under dresses for modesty and warmth. Though actual pants were sometimes seen on women in the late 1800s and in the early part of the 20th century, it was not until the 1970s that the wearing of trousers by women was accepted for business or dress occasions.

If one reads the entire article they will be met with the reality that women of Western culture have nearly always worn bifurcated forms of clothing, or pants. However, they would traditionally wear a dress or skirt over them. As the pictures will show, the pants were often visible below their dresses. This actually answers my question regarding bifurcated pantyhose, which is warn under dresses and skirts today.

What I think our more conservative brethren aren't seeing is... bifurcated garments were never considered an "abomination" on a woman. In fact, their own source above states that women wore pantalettes or drawers under dresses for modesty and warmth. Isn't it interesting that pants were dawned by women and worn under their dresses for the sake of modesty? If wearing bifurcated garments are an abomination, then the women of Western culture have been abominations since at least as far back as the late 1800's (according to this article).

The issue regarding pants vs. skirt for the New Testament Christian is not one of legalistic "abomination" as specified by the Law of Moses. The issue is... modesty. I've repeatedly explained that I have no issue with aspiring to a biblical modesty that involves women choosing of their own free will to wear dresses and skirts instead of pants. Some churches have no issue with women wearing pants at home or casually, but they request that women wear dresses or skirts when attending a church service as a means of ensuring modesty for worship.

So, what's the big debate here? Here are the positions presented:

The conservatives:
- Deuteronomy 22:5 is primarily applied to pants on women.
- Pants on women are an "abomination".
- Being an abomination, wearing pants is a sin that can cost a woman her soul
- Pants on a woman are always immodest.
- Women are therefore commanded to not wear pants.

The liberals (or moderates):
- The exact meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 is debated among scholars and is about something far more serious than mere pants on a woman (idolatry & perversion).
- We are not under the Law of Moses but under Grace.
- While Christians are not under the Law of Moses, we are admonished to be a modest people.
- Pants in and of themselves are not a sin or an abomination on a woman.
- It can be argued that dresses and/or skirts are more modest than pants.
- Women are encouraged to wear dresses and/or skirts as they seek biblical modesty in their Christian walk.
- Women who wish to wear pants are not regarded as being "in sin".
- Special care should be taken to ensure that one is modest when wearing pants.

I think our readers should chime in and perhaps share their thoughts on the issue after having heard both sides.