How Jesus Dressed

LOL Kathy . . . you sure know how to get 'em started don't yah?

 

>>Hank, you wouldn't believe the lengths our associate pastor used to go to in an attempt to convince us that the wine of the New Testament had no alcohol in it>>

Hmm, with a climate like Israel and no means of refrigeration or preservation, grape juice would start fermenting from day one. In about two weeks it would be completely turned.

HankD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
&gt;&gt;Hank, you wouldn't believe the lengths our associate pastor used to go to in an attempt to convince us that the wine of the New Testament had no alcohol in it&gt;&gt;

Hmm, with a climate like Israel and no means of refrigeration or preservation, grape juice would start fermenting from day one. In about two weeks it would be completely turned.

HankD<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. Plus, you'll notice in John 2 that the wedding guests talk about getting drunk on the stuff.

Joshua

P.S. Kathy, sorry about the digression. I hope that we've fully answered you question. I can point you to some additional resources if you like, but the long and the short of it is that there was very little difference between male and female dress in the biblical era. In addition, the Deuteronomy passage used to get women to stop wearing dresses is almost immediately followed by one that condemns (with equal weight) the wool-blend suits generally worn by the people trying to control what women wear. -JV

 

Two comments on the above posts.

1. On the "pants" issue and the imaginative assertion that fundamentalism has invented a "new" standard based on our culture. 1 Timothy 2:9 says that women are to adorn themselves in appropriate hanging robes. That doesn't seem cultural to me, unless you dismiss Paul's writings as not applying to us tody.

2. The equally imaginative assertion that grape juice, left at room temperature of Palestine would turn into alcoholic wine. In order to produce alcohol, slow fermentation is necessary. To insure slow fermentation the grape juice must be kept cool, thus the extensive use of wine cellars. In Palestine, the normal temperatures are much to warm to support slow fermentation. At those temperatures fast fermentation occurs which produces vinegar not alcohol. It takes much effort to keep the juice cool enough to cause slow fermentation.

 

Thomas,

You are talking to someone with Italian grandparents on both sides who were wine makers.

I have made wine in ALL kinds of weather (years ago of course) with the desired results.

HankD

 

As I was reading the posts on this thread, I couldn't believe that some folks got stuck on the word breeches, and wanted to have Bible references to verify the existence of such. Well, how about looking up Exodus 28:42; 39:28; Leviticus 6:10; 16:4; and Ezekiel 44:18 for starters?

You can look up any competent dictionary and find out what breeches were used, and the linen breeches in particular. But enough said of breeches!

 

You can look in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Heberew-English Lexicon (entry #4370 /mik'nas/ under the root /banas/ (page 488 in my edition) and see that the "breeches" you are talking about are a linen undergarment worn by priests.

These are not, in any way, shape, or form pants and they wouldn't have been visible under the dress-like cloak or robe and the dress-like undertunic that Jesus and everyone else in that area wore.

The only people who believe that Jesus or any other men of his era in that part of the world wore "pants" as we understand them are people who are trying desperately and wrongly to keep women from wearing them. (As I pointed out in another thread, oddly enough they pay no attention to that verse about blended fabrics.)

Joshua

 

Hmm,

How about the obvious and the location of the zipper of most women's slacks.

How can such garments be said to "pertaineth to a man"?

HankD

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CJoshuaV: Thomas, what are you using as a resource to indicate that Jesus wore breeches.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joshua, my response earlier was triggered by the above quote. And based on my Bible references given can you substantiate that Jesus did not use breeches?

And by the way, I was using the smilies, of which you were not - that seems to be the total difference here!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Two comments on the above posts.

11 Timothy 2:9 says that women are to adorn themselves in appropriate hanging robes. That doesn't seem cultural to me, unless you dismiss Paul's writings as not applying to us tody.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1 Timothy 2:9 "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array

Is there something I am missing here? Does modest apparel actually interpreted mean "hanging robe"? I have never heard that one before

~Lorelei

 

Hmm, what does "shamefacedness" mean.
I don't have access to any greek texts at the moement, but the English seems to imply a look of shame upon the face.

HankD

 

Clothes!! Somebody Just please say that Jesus wore clothes!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grace: Clothes!! Somebody Just please say that Jesus wore clothes! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can live with that!

 

BJ,

Sorry, I thought you were beeing serious. I guess I'm getting a little touchy lately. Please accept my apologies.

Of course I can't say that Jesus didn't wear pants or space suits, except to say that doing so would have been so unusual (since the garments were unheard of in that era and place) that someone would probably have mentioned it.

The grouchy tone you're picking up comes from learning that there are some people who believe that the Bible says women shouldn't wear pants and my own reaction to that kind of lousy exegesis.

Again, sorry for the snippiness.

Joshua

 

O.K. correct me if I'm wrong, but does'nt the verse in Deut. about pretaining to have to do more with trying to fill a mans "role"
which the women were not to do. Taking on the duties of a man, as in putting on armour,
for instance to go into battle, which was strictly the men's duty.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
Hmm, what does "shamefacedness" mean.
I don't have access to any greek texts at the moement, but the English seems to imply a look of shame upon the face.

HankD<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Think we get a little emoticon for that or will one of these work?

Nah, we need one for shamefacedness then!

~Lorelei

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorelei:


1 Timothy 2:9 "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array

Is there something I am missing here? Does modest apparel actually interpreted mean "hanging robe"? I have never heard that one before

~Lorelei<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The phrase is /katastolei kosmiou/ - modest dress. Even if it did say "robes" the contrast wouldn't be between "robes" and "pants" but between modest clothing and extravagant clothing. Paul certainly would not have been prescribing a particular style of dress for all time (of course, the point is moot since it doesn't say "robe").

Joshua

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Two comments on the above posts.

1. On the "pants" issue and the imaginative assertion that fundamentalism has invented a "new" standard based on our culture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is, in no way, imaginative. Any assertion that Jesus wore pants or that there was a significant difference between male and female dress in Palestine in the Biblical era is a new and revisionist standard with no biblical basis.

Of course Paul's emphasis on modest versus extravagant dress is still applicable. It is not, however, a command to wear robes.

Joshua