Was the back covered in the list of armor that Paul gave in Eph 6?

[EleventhHour]

Have you seen a picture of the breast plate that Roman soldiers wore? There are museum pieces and also artist drawings.

See below:

View attachment 219881

I think much has been preached about the armor not having a back that was just made up based on ignorance and lack of diligent study to find out what the Roman Soldier armor looked like. Of course it covered the back. It was called the breast plate and so ignorant preachers assumed it just covered the breast and preached something about no back being covered because you are not supposed to run. Preach a whole 30 minutes on something Paul never talked about nor intended to teach.

My point is...How many other things are we thinking are true and thinking they are in the bible because of sermons we heard repeated through the years?

They stopped using this type of breastplate and developed one with a chain of metal strips by the time Paul wrote that in his epistles.

Having seen the statues, the Roman Emperors were often done using the older type of breastplate.

 

[lenna]

They stopped using this type of breastplate and developed one with a chain of metal strips by the time Paul wrote that in his epistles.

Having seen the statues, the Roman Emperors were often done using the older type of breastplate.

source please?

 

[EleventhHour]

source please?

Having been to Italy multiple times, museums etc.,
The armour changed over the years, and the Roman soldier often had hand me downs.
Some of it is restored based on bits and pieces.

 

[lenna]

Having to Italy multiple times, museums etc.,
The armour changed over the years, and the Roman soldier often had hand me downs.
Some of it is restored based on bits and pieces.

well I found the following which does not seem to really back up what you say (notwithstanding your personal observations)

there were several breastplates used actually and for different purposes

ALL had backs to them so the back was covered

Mail was durable and was used almost throughout Roman history. The hooped armour was expensive to produce and heavy; it was used from around the start of the Empire into the 4th century.

the above would be well past Paul's time and since different types were used, he probably had seen some but he was there at the time it was being used

 

[EleventhHour]

well I found the following which does not seem to really back up what you say (notwithstanding your personal observations)

there were several breastplates used actually and for different purposes

ALL had backs to them so the back was covered

Mail was durable and was used almost throughout Roman history. The hooped armour was expensive to produce and heavy; it was used from around the start of the Empire into the 4th century.

the above would be well past Paul's time and since different types were used, he probably had seen some but he was there at the time it was being used

Yup just what I stated. They have all this info in the museums with dates and timelines.
I think when they fell with the type in the picture above it was hard for them to get up that is why they developed the chain type.
I am sure I could find more websites that state the same.
No Italy this summer... sad face.

 

[posthuman]

well I found the following which does not seem to really back up what you say (notwithstanding your personal observations)

there were several breastplates used actually and for different purposes

ALL had backs to them so the back was covered

Mail was durable and was used almost throughout Roman history. The hooped armour was expensive to produce and heavy; it was used from around the start of the Empire into the 4th century.

the above would be well past Paul's time and since different types were used, he probably had seen some but he was there at the time it was being used

Rome was using Lorica Segmentata from about 20 BC to maybe 250 AD

 

[lenna]

history of roman armor, again explaining different types for different uses

I would hesitate to say Paul did not see the one piece backplate since he was in Rome itself..I am learning about Roman armor

No Italy this summer... sad face.

best made plans....we were going to go up north (I want COOL temps) and rent a cottage for a month. had it all picked out and everything. grrrr. people in much worse shape though...really cannot complain

 

[lenna]

Rome was using Lorica Segmentata from about 20 BC to maybe 250 AD

great. article?

cause I am not finding that. I am finding they used different types for different things and whole bunch of other info.

take it up with google

what's the point anyway? all had backs and that is the discussion. no offence, but I am really fed up with going off op...nothing at all to do with you so please do not take it personally

had a bad run in with someone who just went off into the woods and I got lost in there with them and it left a real bad taste and I should have known better especially since I had had previous off grid ridiculous exchanges with them, including being accused of not being saved. glad I got that off my chest

 

[EleventhHour]

I would hesitate to say Paul did not see the one piece backplate since he was in Rome itself..I am learning about Roman armor

I am sure he knew of it, that is not what I meant, only that they have found a better version for battle.

I am thinking that if new soldiers could use old armour, "hand me downs" then the older versions were probably still being used even when Paul wrote the epistle.

 

[lenna]

I am sure he knew of it, that is not what I meant, only that they have found a better version for battle.

I am thinking that if new soldiers could use old armour, "hand me downs" then the older versions were probably still being used even when Paul wrote the epistle.

oh sorry. I kinda misread what you meant I think. I am still a little hostile from the other day ... shell shocked

gotcha now I think. apparently they slowed down production when it was found that the quality suffered. sounds like a 2020 problem

 

[posthuman]

I think when they fell with the type in the picture above it was hard for them to get up that is why they developed the chain type.

It's not hard to move or get up in armor. You wouldn't wear it in the first place if it hampered your ability to fight. You would die.

It's made to fit a person and when it does even tho it's heavy the weight distributes on your shoulders and hips and it doesn't feel as heavy as it is. when it fits correctly you can move fairly freely, run, do somersaults, jump, kick, etc no problem.
Hollywood uses cheapo, ill-fitting and inaccurate stuff almost always, and so we generally have a wrong view of this stuff unless we're involved in some way with reenactment.

 

[EleventhHour]

oh sorry. I kinda misread what you meant I think. I am still a little hostile from the other day ... shell shocked

gotcha now I think. apparently they slowed down production when it was found that the quality suffered. sounds like a 2020 problem

oh I hear ya .. no worries,

 

[lenna]

It's not hard to move or get up in armor. You wouldn't wear it in the first place if it hampered your ability to fight. You would die.

It's made to fit a person and when it does even tho it's heavy the weight distributes on your shoulders and hips and it doesn't feel as heavy as it is.
Hollywood uses cheapo and inaccurate stuff almost always, and so we generally have a wrong view of this stuff unless we're involved in some way with reenactment.

didn't the armor have like 'hinges' anyway for movement? hippity hoppity down the rabbit trail ... well I suppose it's a sub title for this thread

so

 

[lenna]

check out the new avatar

 

[Locoponydirtman]

What matters is that if one preaches that the armor did not have a back and that is because we are not supposed to turn our back on the enemy but the armor does have a back, what you are teaching is silly. Why take all the great things that could be preached from that passage and instead preach about the armor not having a back and then talk about not running, not turning your back, etc. What a bunch of wood, hay and stubble. It is not going to help anyone because it is just a bunch of imaginations rather than the WORD OF GOD which should have been preached. And yet somewhere in America this Sunday someone will preach yet another sermon about the armor not having a back.

When we see examples like this, things that get repeated that are not even correct, it makes me wonder how many things do people believe are in the Bible that are not there.

Can you think of some others?

Anyone who tries such a message is reading way to much into the text. We need to let the text say what it says, not try to get some secret extended meaning.

 

[EleventhHour]

It's not hard to move or get up in armor. You wouldn't wear it in the first place if it hampered your ability to fight. You would die.

It's made to fit a person and when it does even tho it's heavy the weight distributes on your shoulders and hips and it doesn't feel as heavy as it is. when it fits correctly you can move fairly freely, run, do somersaults, jump, kick, etc no problem.
Hollywood uses cheapo, ill-fitting and inaccurate stuff almost always, and so we generally have a wrong view of this stuff unless we're involved in some way with reenactment.

The full body piece was indeed heavier and more difficult when one fell to the ground that is why it was modified for better movement.
My understanding from the tour guide was that new soldiers often used inherited armor in the early Republic.

Here is a link that talks about how military gear was often inherited, I am sure there is more info on it.
Link

 

[EleventhHour]

check out the new avatar

So funny... definitely a keeper.

 

[Scribe]

didn't the armor have like 'hinges' anyway for movement? hippity hoppity down the rabbit trail ... well I suppose it's a sub title for this thread

So even though their armor changed or even if it was two pieces, a front and a back, no one would prepare themselves for a hand to hand all out melee where you are going to at least duck a few times leaving your back available for a down stroke without some kind of protection from a lucky swing.

Unless you were Celtic in which you stripped butt naked and ran screaming like a demonized maniac straight at the enemy! Which is of course why they lost battles to the well armed and disciplined Romans.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Believe me it matters.
I've seen God go before me and the enemies looking on in wonder how I got there.
I can assume my backside was covered as well because I was established there while those who hated me at first sight where displaced.

He prepares a table before me in the presence of my enemies.

The point of that passage was to use the tools God has provided, or truth, righteousness, the word, etc... To protect yourself from the attacks of Satan. Not actually square inches of flesh covered by armour.

 

[lenna]

So even though their armor changed or even if it was two pieces, a front and a back, no one would prepare themselves for a hand to hand all out melee where you are going to at least duck a few times leaving your back available for a down stroke without some kind of protection from a lucky swing.

Unless you were Celtic in which you stripped butt naked and ran screaming like a demonized maniac straight at the enemy! Which is of course why they lost battles to the well armed and disciplined Romans.

and then the Romans built Hadrian's wall

I mean no one wanted to see the scary nekkid Celts. some things you just cannot unsee mind you, they did paint themselves

yeah seems they basically 'had their backs covered one way or another' now we are all historians on Roman armor