More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This church is no longer around?

Yep. It's still there. I visited maybe 3 years ago when they hosted a drama. Same ol' faces, sitting on the same ol' pews. A bit grayer. Nothing had really changed. It felt really dead. It was really sad.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yep. It's still there. I visited maybe 3 years ago when they hosted a drama. Same ol' faces, sitting on the same ol' pews. A bit grayer. Nothing had really changed. It felt really dead. It was really sad.

Why'd you go back?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Amen, therefore in secular life you can let it all hang out?

That's what I can never get use to in religion. Logic goes right out the window.

Whatever.

Well, I don't think they looked at it like we do.

Now, this is my understanding, it's not something I'm debating or a hill to die on in my opinion. I'm just being conversational here.

It's my understanding that the wealthy had private areas for bathing. However, most communities bathed in public bathing areas as they still do throughout the Near and Far East today. And yes, people liked to swim in certain places. And no, they didn't have bathing suits. They disrobed and got into the water. It's also my understanding that mikveh (a precursor to water baptism) was performed in the nude. My ex-wife came from a Jewish family and I found that to be a bit strange, but it was true. It appears that they performed mikveh in the nude for fear of having a single part of the body untouched by water. An extreme of legalism, I don't agree, but it's a Jewish thing I guess. I read somewhere that even the earliest Christian baptisms performed on the Temple grounds were nude, seeing that they were essentially performing mikveh in the name of Jesus in the mikveh pools. Fishermen fished nude or barely wearing any clothing. In addition families typically lived in single room dwellings. So, there was little privacy. Most children had been well versed on things going bump in the night, breast feeding, breeding animals, and other things we might blush at. But frankly, they were far more mature by age 12 than the average American is at 21. It was also not uncommon for people to marry at 14 or 15 years old.

It was a different culture. A different mindset. I don't think they were as perverted as we are today (or at least not in the manner that we are today). It was just a natural way of life in an ancient society. Nudity was by no means flaunted. But it wasn't something unheard of in certain contexts either.

Oh, final note. Mikvehs are not performed in mixed company. It is also my understanding that most public bathing areas had separate areas for men and women, but not all.

Here's a reference I was able to find:

Easton's Bible Dictionary: Baths
The use of the bath was very frequent among the Hebrews (Lev. 14:8; Num. 19:19, ect.). The high priest at his inauguration (Lev. 8:6), and on the day of atonement, was required to bathe himself (16:4, 24). The “pools” mentioned in Neh. 3:15, 16, 2 Kings 20:20, Isa. 22:11, John 9:7, were public bathing-places. ~ Bible Definition of Baths

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Why'd you go back?

I was invited to the drama. I used to sing the special (Send Down the Rain) as part of the drama when I attended. My ex-wife performed and helped with music. I wanted to see some old friends. Part of me wanted to know if I'd feel at home there. Sad to say, it was so dry compared to the Apostolic church I had been attending after leaving them. It left me feeling down that night.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Well, I don't think they looked at it like we do.

Now, this is my understanding, it's not something I'm debating or a hill to die on in my opinion. I'm just being conversational here.

It's my understanding that the wealthy had private areas for bathing. However, most communities bathed in public bathing areas as they still do throughout the Near and Far East today. And yes, people liked to swim in certain places. And no, they didn't have bathing suits. They disrobed and got into the water. It's also my understanding that mikveh (a precursor to water baptism) was performed in the nude. My ex-wife came from a Jewish family and I found that to be a bit strange, but it was true. It appears that they performed mikveh in the nude for fear of having a single part of the body untouched by water. An extreme of legalism, I don't agree, but it's a Jewish thing I guess. I read somewhere that even the earliest Christian baptisms performed on the Temple grounds were nude, seeing that they were essentially performing mikveh in the name of Jesus in the mikveh pools. Fishermen fished nude or barely wearing any clothing. In addition families typically lived in single room dwellings. So, there was little privacy. Most children had been well versed on things going bump in the night, breast feeding, breeding animals, and other things we blush at. But frankly, they were far more mature by age 12 than the average American is at 21. It was also not uncommon for people to marry at 14 or 15 years old.

It was a different culture. A different mindset. I don't think they were as perverted as we are today. It was just a natural way of life in an ancient society. Nudity was by no means flaunted. But it wasn't something unheard of in certain contexts either.

Oh, final note. Mikvehs are not performed in mixed company. It is also my understanding that most public bathing areas had separate areas for men and women, but not all.

First your wife's Jewish upbringing is separated from Biblical Israelism by about 2,000 years. I don't know what kind of "Jew" she or her people may have been, but actually Judaism today, modern Judaism is as Biblical as Heaven's Gate Cult and Marshall Herff Applewhite, Jr. It has about as much to do with the Bible as the Book of Mormon. They use the tradition of the elders
which were rebuked by Jesus, Matthew 15:1-20. They had a total overhaul from the days of Rabbi Akiba to the Medieval times where your buddy Rambam and before that Rashi really turned up the volume. So, close to everything they do has been blended through their Medieval filters and Mysticism. Nude mikvah? John was performing Mikvahs, we have nothing concerning a crowd of nudists marching towards the Jordan. Nude swimming? Martha, Mary, Jesus, and Lazarus wading around nude? Sure makes the whole thing about Romans stripping a victim bare and nailing them to an open shame have sort of a different meaning. The Crucified man in the loin cloth which hung on the wall of the Roman Church was crafted for modesty. The real crucified victims were totally naked, put to an open shame. If these desert hillbillies were rising up to play NAKED. I guess God and Moses got upset for nothing? Adam? What was he hiding for? What's up with the fig leaf belt for he and his wife only covering the reproductive organs? Naked for the fisherman was his undergarments, his fisher's coat was the outer apparel.

Jesus help you sweetly but help me even more.

Good GOD from ZION!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I was invited to the drama. I used to sing the special (Send Down the Rain) as part of the drama when I attended. My ex-wife performed and helped with music. I wanted to see some old friends. Part of me wanted to know if I'd feel at home there. Sad to say, it was so dry compared to the Apostolic church I had been attending after leaving them. It left me feeling down that night.

How the pastor treat you when you arrived?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Aquila these guys preach against the law, yet here they are preaching for the Law, which is exactly what Deut 22:5 is. it is kind of schizophrenic isn't it?

No more so than Jeremiah and by extension the Holy Ghost observe,
(2Pe 1:21 KJV) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

When Jeremiah penned the words below, it was under the anointing of the Holy Ghost. Here is what God said through Jeremiah:

(Jer 31:31 KJV) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
(Jer 31:32 KJV) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
(Jer 31:33 KJV) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Silly of people to assume:
(2Ti 3:16 KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


At least it is silly to some...


Ignore what God said through the prophets.
Ignore what God said about ALL scripture being profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness.
Ignore what God said about writing the Law in the hearts of man.
Ignore:
(1Co 10:11 ESV) Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.
(1Co 10:12 ESV) Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.


Beuna suerte

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Both brother Pliny and brother Benincasa have made the following argument:

Only males wore bifurcated garments (breeches) in the Bible. No godly women are recorded as wearing breeches or similar apparel. Therefore, there is no Biblical basis, authorisation, or approval for women wearing breeches or similar apparel (pants in modern lingo).

You have not refuted their argument.

You have presented myriads of anecdotes as well as historical testimony from cultures outside the Bible regarding various clothing styles and customs, but have presented no evidence from the Bible that women either should or could wear breeches or similar clothing with God's approval.

Please pay careful attention to my next statement:

It doesn't matter what my opinion or belief is concerning pants, breeches, or what constitutes men's or women's apparel. The simple and obvious fact is that you have not actually addressed the actual argument of those you have been arguing with on this thread.

Can you see that? Please try again.

Thank you.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

How the pastor treat you when you arrived?

He didn't talk to me much. But he was friendly.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

They made the case that the Levites and the three Hebrew captives in Babylon wore bifurcated garments. With this statement I agree. The Levites and the three captive Hebrews wore bifurcated clothing. However, both Pliny and Benincasa insisted that this implied that males commonly wore trousers in Israel. It is my understanding that they didn't. These are the only two cases in which bifurcated garments are mentioned in Scripture, and for the most part, male and female Israelites, and the Jews of Christ's day, actually wore clothing that was quite similar. Neither wore bifurcated garments as part of everyday common attire.

The bolded is a flat out lie. I never said pants were commonly worn. There is little doubt that other men wore pants. However, that does not mean they were the fashion fad Aquila has accused me of saying. Aquila agrees that the Levites and the three Hebrew young men wore pants. It is only logical that other Hebrew young men wore them as well. Aquila, you need to prove your accusation or apologize.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Since the average Israelite (male or female) didn't wear trousers, it's a mute point. What I wish to point out, however, is that both male and female did actually wear very similar attire. Therefore, the prohibition in Deuteronomy wasn't necessarily about a requirement to wear radically different "styles" of clothing.

Holiness is not a popularity contest nor is it up for a vote. Whether an average Israeli wore trousers is indeed a mute point. Just not in the way Aquila wishes it was. The fact remains (and agreed to by Aquila) that godly men wore pants. Godly women did not. So simple even a cave man can understand it.

Originally Posted by Aquila

They've yet to produce evidence that the average Israelite wore pants (which was their claim), and that the average attire was radically different between male and female.

Again, another lie. The claim is that godly men wore pants. Godly women did not. A "claim" that Aquila agreed to above. Holiness is not a popularity contest. It does not matter if it was a widespread practice or not. What does matter is whether or not godly men wore them. The answer is yes - Aquila agrees. The next question is, did godly women wear them? The answer is no.

The only other question is whether or not Aquila has the courage to admit that godly women never wore pants. If so, PLEASE provide EVIDENCE - not wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Aquila

What I have done is establish that pants weren't a concern when Deuteronomy 22:5 was written. In addition, both male and female Israelites wore very similar clothing.

This is patently false. The Levites were commanded to wear them prior to Deu. 22:5 being written. Afterwards, the three godly Hebrew boys, who understood the Law, wore them into a fiery furnace while maintaining the Law. God was impressed enough to join them in the fire. Thus we have testimony prior to and after its command of godly men wearing pants. What has been established is that godly women did not.

Aquila has said Ancient Israeli's did not wear pants. That is a lie unless he wishes to argue that ancient Israel precedes Moses. Of course prior to Moses Israel was a family not a nation.

Originally Posted by Aquila

All of these statements are designed to misinform the reader. It is my understanding that trousers/pants etc. were not common attire among the average Israelite. In fact, both men and women dressed similarly. They wore tunics, girdles, and outer garments. Among the common people, neither the men nor the women wore pants in ancient Judea.

Now Aquila flat out says I purposely lied to the reader. Once again you owe an apology. A statement that other men wore them does not mean they were the fashion trend of the day. It simply means what it says. If I wanted, I could go back and copy and paste the multitudes of lies said by Aquila. Lies like no Ancient Israeli wore pants. This is a patently false statement. The Levites and the three Hebrew young men were ancient Israelis. Thus, this matter is self-evident.

Again, holiness is not up for a vote. It is not tied to popularity. What does matter is what God believes. In His word, He commanded Levites to wear them and later three godly Hebrew young men were thrown into a fiery furnace in defense of Deu. 22:5 and the rest of the Law. God was pleased with them and joined them in the furnace.

What has been established is that Aquila is floundering around spouting fallacy after fallacy while acknowledging that what has been established cannot be refuted by himself.

Originally Posted by Aquila

They made the case that the Levites and the three Hebrew captives in Babylon wore bifurcated garments. With this statement I agree.

I am still waiting for EVIDENCE that godly women wore pants. The conspicuous absence of any coherent evidence speaks loudly. Aquila is wrong but will go to his grave fighting against what has been established.