Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

If the debate is about cross dressing? isn't a man wearing a dress cross dressing?

Yes. And so is a man prancing around in women's jeans. Do you disagree?

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think the whole debate is stupid.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is clearly about cross-dressing, gender bending, perversion, and gender confusion, and even homosexual desire. All these perversions where common place in the pagan peoples around Israel. Even the Sodomite temple prostitutes who were later in the very temple of God were cross-dressing and conducting their gender bending pagan rituals and seducing worshipers to have sex with them. It makes perfect sense for God to forbid such things.

Those who say that this text is about pants are dumbing down the seriousness of this text, the severity of the sin in question, and its current relevance in our own gender confused culture. It's not about pants on a woman, it's not about if T-shirts permitted on women. It's not about what culture wore what, when, and why. It's not about women dawning weapons or body armor. It's about a sickening sexual perversion, an abomination.

You are right it is about all that too, but its also about pants on women and dresses on men at the same time. It does encompass that, but thats not the whole of the matter. You can't have what you said,without it encompassing the other and vice versa.

Because my Bible clearly say's "Abstain from all appearance of evil." Though you may not be behaving as Rachel Rose (not you Aquila but in general. Male or female included!), it shouldn't even appear that way! Thats why the Bible says a woman shouldnt even wear that which pertains unto a man and vice versa. So your right ill go with transvestites, and divine order bending altogether, i.e. the man being led by a woman, or her wearing the pants as its classically called.. But we should also abstain from every appearance of that, and not wear that which pertains to either sex, i.e. also encompassing pants. I don't believe we can have one without the other.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes. And so is a man prancing around in women's jeans. Do you disagree?

there shouldn't be such a thing as women's jeans.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This woman is a crossdresser.

Yep and she wears the britches in that relationship also.. If you can understand what I mean (not you E.B but in general) why are we even having this argument??

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Amanah

there shouldn't be such a thing as women's jeans.

It's very simple. Though a lot of things in our society have become a social norm abortion, gay marriage, feminism or anything else, doesnt make it biblical or right.

People now a days want to explain God out of their social lens, this society has no reflection on who God is. Like my pastor always says:"Never mix up Gods mercy, with His approval."

And thats what the spirit behind all this is fighting for, approval! Just look at the homosexual agenda and what they said after the SCOTUS ruling, they will stop at nothing to be accepted and approved of. Not only by society but the church. And thats what that spirit is after. So I don't know about anyone else but I'm putting my foot down, and I'm not going to budge or compromise here. That spirit wants approval but its not getting it out of me!! In Jesus Name!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

If you have no book, or historical findings you can go all over the place. Which sadly your group does, and often.

History is good. But I think we can agree that history is rarely objective. Let's stick to book. If pants were so common, as you've stated, why doesn't the Bible specifically condemn them as it does other things? Deuteronomy 22:5 is very general, the language debatable, and it's practice all over the map. If these very common ancient pants were so important, wouldn't God leave little doubt?

You brought up cannabis. Did God ever mention it in Scripture? It was as present then as it is now. Hemp, the sweet cane of kenehbosm was traded with gusto. Yet there is virtually no mention of it, unless one counts the ingredients of the holy oil or holy incense. Yet I'm to believe it's a sin and absolutely can't be used medicinally in spite of the fact that it was used medicinally for over 5,000 years, and is thoroughly documented in ancient texts from China? Even after decades of research from all over the world for the past 60 years or more? Even with more and more doctors stunned by their own research on it? Even after the growing number of families giving testimony of how it is helping those with not only PTSD, but Parkinson's, Epilepsy, Cancer, and dozens of other conditions? Where's the "book" for such closed mindedness?

It sounds like someone is stuck in the madness of the 60's, having enshrined the falsified reports made under the Nixon Administration. As though someone has declared the ways and understandings of the 50's and 60's God's holy standard, the golden era of righteousness.

Where's the book for all this?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes. And so is a man prancing around in women's jeans. Do you disagree?

You need help

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Aquila

History is good. But I think we can agree that history is rarely objective. Let's stick to book.

Aquila we did and Exodus 28:42 proved that breeches i.e. pants, trousers were a garment intended for men, by the Amen Himself...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

You are right it is about all that too, but its also about pants on women and dresses on men at the same time. It does encompass that, but thats not the whole of the matter. You can't have what you said,without it encompassing the other and vice versa.

Because my Bible clearly say's "Abstain from all appearance of evil." Though you may not be behaving as Rachel Rose (not you Aquila but in general. Male or female included!), it shouldn't even appear that way! Thats why the Bible says a woman shouldnt even wear that which pertains unto a man and vice versa. So your right ill go with transvestites, and divine order bending altogether, i.e. the man being led by a woman, or her wearing the pants as its classically called.. But we should also abstain from every appearance of that, and not wear that which pertains to either sex, i.e. also encompassing pants. I don't believe we can have one without the other.

I agree with the general premise of your thoughts. But Deuteronomy 22:5 is addressing an abominable "practice". Not a style of attire. In fact, it neither affirms or denies that a pantaloon can be designed specifically for women. What it does state is that the practice of men and women wearing one another's clothing is an abomination to God. Should women not be permitted to go to the arctic because they'd have to wear protective pantsuits? And here's another thing... the focus on pants isn't found in the text. It is very general, implying that anything that pertains to one gender is not to be worn by the other. This is where the brazen error is highlighted. Because if we applied the same principle applied to pants to all articles of clothing, many things commonly worn by women would be an abomination. Things like T-shirts, hosiery, high heeled shoes, etc., etc.. In fact, the first womans wristwatch is credited to Abraham-Louis Breguet (1747-1823) who made the watch for the Queen of Naples on June 8, 1810, and Patek Philippe made a wristwatch for Countess Koscowicz of Hungary in 1869. During this time, and onward for the next 100-120 years, men viewed wristwatches as women’s items. As a result, men would carry pocket watches in their waist coat. But something happened, men started wearing wrist watches. Oh the humanity!!! LOL

I could go on and on and on about how common attire today is riddled with various articles of clothing, accessories, and styles that were originally for the opposite gender. If Deuteronomy 22:5 matters at all in the manner that it is interpreted to matter with regards to pants, it would have to apply across the board.

So, the position against pants on women being based on Deuteronomy 22:5 is brazenly inconsistent.

Now, please don't think that I'm arguing that women wearing pants is absolutely fine, because I don't think that either. Women's pants aren't very modest. I've covered this. They typically are designed to accentuate a woman's curves and sexual appeal on purpose. A bit exploitive, if you ask me. But, nevertheless, they do pertain to a woman. And any man who prances around in women's pants, wrist hanging in the wind, acting like a woman is clearly in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5. So, even though women's pants clearly pertain to a woman...due to the prevalence of immodest styles, Christian women do well to cease wearing pants in the spirit of affirming the highest level of Christian modesty in our culture.

I keep being called liberal on this. But most liberals call me fundamentalist for the statements I make, and the conservatives call me liberal for the statements I make. The truth is... I'm strictly trying to see the book for what it clearly states without adding to it or taking away from it. Clearly Deuteronomy condemns the practice, lifestyle, and perversion of transvestitism. But to make the text all about pants is to water it down to me. It is a bell ringing a warning alarm against a perversion. Not some silly little code of conduct requiring a deep searching history of every article of clothing we wear, or only the deep searching of history over a single article of clothing we wear.

I don't see anything about a woman wearing Jordache jeans in Deuteronomy 22:5. I do see the fiery condemnation of a perversion, a lifestyle of gender bending, and debauchery that is truly an... abomination.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

there shouldn't be such a thing as women's jeans.

The first woman's wristwatch is credited to Abraham-Louis Breguet (1747-1823) who made the watch for the Queen of Naples on June 8, 1810, and Patek Philippe made a wristwatch for Countess Koscowicz of Hungary in 1869. During this time, and onward for the next 100-120 years, men viewed wristwatches as women’s items. As a result, men would carry pocket watches in their waist coat.

Why isn't anyone crying out against the existence of men's wrist watches? lol