More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Deuteronomy 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

No specifics are given in the text. No specific prohibitions on bifurcated attire are given anywhere else. All that we're told is that men aren't to wear things made for a woman, nor a woman things made for a man.

All cultural examples are not edicts, and if fact, they are only implications we as individuals draw from Israelite and surrounding culture. And if we can draw from any cultural example biblical or classical, we can draw from our own.

Just an observation...

I'm sitting here in an ice-cream shop as I people-watch. I see women wearing both pants and dresses. Most dresses and pants and shirts are being worn immodestly in my opinion. A couple guys are in immodest muscle shirts, one is in jeans that are too tight.

As I observe the jeans women are wearing, I see that they are cut differently, designed to pertain to a woman. I wouldn't wear them, nor would any other male I know. They pertain to women.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In the Bible, they wore what was culturally acceptable. Pliny even posted a reference to standard inner garments (for both genders) including pantaloons.

If what happened in the Bible happened today, women would be wearing pants, dresses, and skirts.

Remember, all attire belonging to both men and women in ancient Israel was relatively alike with corresponding articles of clothing.

They'll never accept it. THIS is the hill they die on. To them to affirm that a woman can wear slacks and not sin, is to fall away from the "apostolic" faith. Its why they gnash their teeth against you, Zword, NDavid, and others.

Even though y'all all fall under the "apostolic" unbrella, these guys don't believe y'all are even brothers. Y'all are just heretics, compromisers, and charismatics.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jason B

They'll never accept it. THIS is the hill they die on. To them to affirm that a woman can wear slacks and not sin, is to fall away from the "apostolic" faith. Its why they gnash their teeth against you, Zword, NDavid, and others.

Even though y'all all fall under the "apostolic" unbrella, these guys don't believe y'all are even brothers. Y'all are just heretics, compromisers, and charismatics.

They mean well.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

They mean well.

Don't just mean well, I'm just reading a Bible was written to people in the Bronze and Iron age. They didn't have similar attire, they didn't wear Hotel bathrobes. Hillary in a pant suit is a Hell Spewing Abomination.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don't just mean well, I'm just reading a Bible was written to people in the Bronze and Iron age. They didn't have similar attire, they didn't wear Hotel bathrobes. Hillary in a pant suit is a Hell Spewing Abomination.

They wore an inner garment, a tunic, that they secured with a belt. They wore an outer garment, a larger tunic, over it. They wore sandals and hide shoes. And, as Pliny's reference bore out, men and women, sometimes wore pantaloons too keep warm in the colder months. Women wore veils , it was common for both men's and women's outer garments often had a hood. Clothing for both genders was very similar, only differences were the length of the inner and outer tunics. For worn, they extended to the ankle. For men, they extended to the knee or mid calf. Beyond length, differences could include embroidery, color, and sometimes the texture of the fabrics.

If I'm wrong, please provide evidence.

Thanks.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

They wore an inner garment, a tunic, that they secured with a belt. They wore an outer garment, a larger tunic, over it. They wore sandals and hide shoes. And, as Pliny's reference bore out, men and women, sometimes wore pantaloons too keep warm in the colder months. Women wore veils , it was common for both men's and women's outer garments often had a hood. Clothing for both genders was very similar, only differences were the length of the inner and outer tunics. For worn, they extended to the ankle. For men, they extended to the knee or mid calf. Beyond length, differences could include embroidery, color, and sometimes the texture of the fabrics.

If I'm wrong, please provide evidence.

Thanks.

I have, and Esaias has. We have gone back and forth so much, that you flipped out and cursed me out. You apologized twice. And Jason B is more confused than he has ever been.

Seriously too funny.

Your idea of attire in the Bible is everyone wore a hotel robe with flip flops. You actually try harder to allow the Bible to morph to modern culture instead of allowing the Bible to change your culture. As Esaias pointed out you never actually dealt with my original thoughts on Deuteronomy 22:5. You have been digging through Google with fervent madness, but alas only to bring forth issues which have nothing to do with my original thoughts on the discussion. Sandals and sneakers? Bro, there was a time just in the history of Christendom where they had total differences in attire between men and women. Yet, that isn't the culture in which you now deal with. You have a lesbian relative who is married to another lesbian. Which 70 years ago in this country every church, sect, and denomination would of thrown everything from bottles, tomatoes, to the kitchen sink at it. Not now, now you all are slouching toward Gomorrah and will be embraced by Sodom then die in ruin.

Like I posted a few pages back, this thread had died the death of a 1,000 cuts. You all can't even read a dictionary on Aramaic, how in God's name should we continue this already exhausted discussion.

Listen, people who are postmodern, will refuse to believe what I'm posting even if Jesus split the eastern sky carrying King David playing his harp.

We have an entire thread jam pack n full with proof from both sides. Also some of the most insane stupidity I have ever heard in my life.

As the Jedi once said, May the Force be with you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

They'll never accept it. THIS is the hill they die on. To them to affirm that a woman can wear slacks and not sin, is to fall away from the "apostolic" faith. Its why they gnash their teeth against you, Zword, NDavid, and others.

Even though y'all all fall under the "apostolic" unbrella, these guys don't believe y'all are even brothers. Y'all are just heretics, compromisers, and charismatics.

Talk about gnashing teeth, you can't stand being on stuck in your religious revolving door. Heretic! What a laugh! You called me a heretic just a couple of pages back. Jason, you probably have a full size picture of Hillary Clinton in a pant suit and think that's godly attire.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Jason B

They'll never accept it. THIS is the hill they die on. To them to affirm that a woman can wear slacks and not sin, is to fall away from the "apostolic" faith. Its why they gnash their teeth against you, Zword, NDavid, and others.

Even though y'all all fall under the "apostolic" unbrella, these guys don't believe y'all are even brothers. Y'all are just heretics, compromisers, and charismatics.

I don't know about that,the Apostolic faith is much bigger than a single issue, I am quite sure they will eventually quietly drop this pant issue. We no longer hear much about women wearing the red color are harlots or some other petty pet peeves of some old time preachers.

people change with time and old misconceptions fall by the wayside, especially with the new generation of preachers.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I don't know about that,the Apostolic faith is much bigger than a single issue, I am quite sure they will eventually quietly drop this pant issue. We no longer hear much about women wearing the red color are harlots or some other petty pet peeves of some old time preachers.

people change with time and old misconceptions fall by the wayside, especially with the new generation of preachers.

Here we go with misrepresentation of the discussion. I had originally discussed the language of the verse. I used the Greek Old Testament the 3rd century B.C. (the Old Testament used by Jesus and the Apostles), the Latin Vulgate 382 A.D., and the Masoretic text 1524 A.D.. I also repeatedly offered Revelation 19:16 to show that on Jesus' vesture and thigh meaning pants were written. Not that Jesus was tattooed. I pointed out that the Lexicographers where undecided on the Aramaic concerning the word for trousers in Daniel. Yet, did I or Pliny, or Esaias say anything about the color red? No. FZ, don't do that. Especially since you believe, teach, and have a book which attempts to prove that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation of an original Hebrew copy. While you yourself bring up a plethora of circumstantial evidence to present your case. Shame, my friend and brother. To excuse me of believing in such stupid garbage as teaching against shade of color. Still love you and respect you. No wide grin green emoji here.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Red? She best not do that in front of a bull.