Hasidic Enclave gets it on modesty

[MotherKatharine]

Scipio,

Can you quote Scripture where it says exactly what the clothes Adam and Eve wore looked like?  I can't seem to find it.
Also, do you have any quotes from early Church Fathers, Popes, and Saints that might back up your assertions?
I think I need some authority to back up what you propose before I can consider it.

[Scipio_a]

Scipio,

Can you quote Scripture where it says exactly what the clothes Adam and Eve wore looked like?  I can't seem to find it.
Also, do you have any quotes from early Church Fathers, Popes, and Saints that might back up your assertions?
I think I need some authority to back up what you propose before I can consider it.

This was done in another thread....


I'll see if I can find it for you...Found it...see below


The description in English is often made as "apron"....but the words used in Latin mean "Loin Cloth"

A loin cloth is what Christ was Crucified in

As far as which bible says what about the way Eve dressed herself...or the way she is depicted over and over in art...according to Tradition...well that ain't much of a topic.

The Latin in your Bible is "perizomata" which the DR translates "apron" it actually translates to girdle or more properly loincloth...the current Italian is perizoma which translates to loincloth

Look up the word girdle apron in Italian...you get nothing related to perizomata...an indication of a person's time, place and culture giving them UNDUE sensitivities in translation....for how could a medieval Englishman envision Eve..our mother...in the same sort of loincloth Christ wore on the Cross....but here again we have the wonder of our Faith..the full circle it always seems to be with so much connected.

Imagine that...the Second Adam wearing the same thing as the First Adam...and First Eve....unreal...and you all thought the evidence for the Shroud of Turin was too cool...

As you say the Kenneth Cole of Eternity gave them some sweet leather duds... I've seen leather duds....they look good.

Gen 3:7 == DR side by side with Vulgate

http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&b=1&c=3#3_7


As far a searching through dictionaries and stuff...I'll let you do that.  I did it a while back and just posted the results as seen above.

[Rosarium]

The description in English is often made as "apron"....bu the words used in Latin mean "Lion Cloth"

A lion cloth is what Christ was Crucified in

loin. "Lion cloth" sounds much more impressive.

I would think that any garment worn by the first people would be simple, practical and modest. The tunic, as largely worn in history, fits the bill.

In terms of design and function, it would be logical (without actual evidence) to depict the garments worn by Adam and Eve (and their children) as tunics of some sort barring evidence to the contrary.

[Scipio_a]

The description in English is often made as "apron"....bu the words used in Latin mean "Lion Cloth"

A lion cloth is what Christ was Crucified in

loin. "Lion cloth" sounds much more impressive.

I would think that any garment worn by the first people would be simple, practical and modest. The tunic, as largely worn in history, fits the bill.

In terms of design and function, it would be logical (without actual evidence) to depict the garments worn by Adam and Eve (and their children) as tunics of some sort barring evidence to the contrary.

LOL...lion cloth


Tunic, is fine, except that's not what the word "perizomata" means....unless it is a lesser definition...


and perizoma is great..."loincloth, thong or g-string".....so maybe I'm back to pasties and a t-back....LOL

http://dictionary.reverso.net/italian-english/perizoma

[Rosarium]

The description in English is often made as "apron"....bu the words used in Latin mean "Lion Cloth"

A lion cloth is what Christ was Crucified in

loin. "Lion cloth" sounds much more impressive.

I would think that any garment worn by the first people would be simple, practical and modest. The tunic, as largely worn in history, fits the bill.

In terms of design and function, it would be logical (without actual evidence) to depict the garments worn by Adam and Eve (and their children) as tunics of some sort barring evidence to the contrary.

LOL...lion cloth


Tunic, is fine, except that's not what the word "perizomata" means....unless it is a lesser definition...


and perizoma is great..."loincloth, thong or g-string".....so maybe I'm back to pasties and a t-back....LOL

Loin clothes and tunics seem to be the basic garments of the world. I guess it could be either, but the real issue is not how two married people (Adam and Eve) dressed around each other. In fact, given the circumstances, the being "naked" is probably more of losing the grace they had, than being unclothed. That would be something new entirely.

[MotherKatharine]

Scipio,

Can you quote Scripture where it says exactly what the clothes Adam and Eve wore looked like?  I can't seem to find it.
Also, do you have any quotes from early Church Fathers, Popes, and Saints that might back up your assertions?
I think I need some authority to back up what you propose before I can consider it.

This was done in another thread....


I'll see if I can find it for you...Found it...see below


The description in English is often made as "apron"....but the words used in Latin mean "Loin Cloth"

A loin cloth is what Christ was Crucified in

As far as which bible says what about the way Eve dressed herself...or the way she is depicted over and over in art...according to Tradition...well that ain't much of a topic.

The Latin in your Bible is "perizomata" which the DR translates "apron" it actually translates to girdle or more properly loincloth...the current Italian is perizoma which translates to loincloth

Look up the word girdle apron in Italian...you get nothing related to perizomata...an indication of a person's time, place and culture giving them UNDUE sensitivities in translation....for how could a medieval Englishman envision Eve..our mother...in the same sort of loincloth Christ wore on the Cross....but here again we have the wonder of our Faith..the full circle it always seems to be with so much connected.

Imagine that...the Second Adam wearing the same thing as the First Adam...and First Eve....unreal...and you all thought the evidence for the Shroud of Turin was too cool...

As you say the Kenneth Cole of Eternity gave them some sweet leather duds... I've seen leather duds....they look good.

Gen 3:7 == DR side by side with Vulgate

http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&b=1&c=3#3_7


As far a searching through dictionaries and stuff...I'll let you do that.  I did it a while back and just posted the results as seen above.

Ok.. so the clothes that Adam and Even made for themselves may have been an immodest apron, afterall what does fallen man know about appropriate standards of modesty without an authority to show them?  Perhaps the animal skins the Lord God clothed them with provided better coverage.

I don't have time to look up authoritative statements that might make your claims plausible.  I will rely on the traditional standards of Christian modesty which are plain to see.

[Rosarium]

Ok.. so the clothes that Adam and Even made for themselves may have been an immodest apron, afterall what does fallen man know about appropriate standards of modesty without an authority to show them?  Perhaps the animal skins the Lord God clothed them with provided better coverage.

I don't have time to look up authoritative statements that might make your claims plausible.  I will rely on the traditional standards of Christian modesty which are plain to see.

But it doesn't matter what they wore at that time in Genesis. They were the only two humans, and they were made for each other (married). So, in this sense, modesty is relative. It is not immodest to bath naked or to be unclothed in private with one's spouse.

[Exilenomore]

I have read a claim somewhere that the Hebrew word for the clothing that God made for Adam and Eve actually signified a garb that covered their whole bodies which would be compatible with the traditional view of modesty. I do not remember where I read it, though.

If something incited people to lust hundred years ago, then why would it change now? That is like saying that human nature is less damaged now than a century ago. And apparently Our Lady of Fatima did not feel the need to explain what she meant by immodest dress, because it was clear what she meant.

[Scipio_a]

Ok.. so the clothes that Adam and Even made for themselves may have been an immodest apron, afterall what does fallen man know about appropriate standards of modesty without an authority to show them?  Perhaps the animal skins the Lord God clothed them with provided better coverage.

I don't have time to look up authoritative statements that might make your claims plausible.  I will rely on the traditional standards of Christian modesty which are plain to see.

Let's suppose the clothes they made themselves were immodest, as unlikely as that is, and lets suppose the garments God sewed up for them were a little more covering and comfortable, that still does not equal a timeless standard since objective truths, as stated above, are truths both before and after the fall.  The fact remains they were in the buff before the fall and were as modest as Mary due to their complete innocence.

So we are left with some form of nudity..LOL to flowing cloth as modesty for people.

Post fall we are told it was a loin cloth, they would have made more to cover more if they had felt the need, having not felt the need they did not.  God seeing they had no sewing machine and that he would not give them Kenneth Cole, decided to give them some leather duds....I've seen chicks in leather.....I'm glad God chose leather.

[Iolanthe]

yeah i read it couldnt you tell what i was responding to? The line about beating the modesty drum all the time... And the point is why wouldnt you... That doesnt mean that is all there is to the faith. I think the OP was just commenting on one little thing the jews were doing that he agreed with. I know he wasnt making the leap that this validates their false religion....did you read the OP?

No, I couldn't tell what you were responding to, because your response made no sense in the context of what I wrote. There is a problem with people emphasizing people's clothing to the exclusion of other things, but what you wrote sounded like I approve of women going to church dressed immodestly, when half of my post was intended to show the importance of modesty.

I didn't say the anyone was validating a false religion.

I understood the OP. You seem to have trouble with nuances.