Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The pants worn during the time of Christ, and before that in the near and Middle East. Were worn by soldiers, calvary, and even infantry. Trousers weren’t worn by the women. Parthian horseman wore trousers, Celtic warriors wore trousers which were adopted by the Romans.

We shouldn't take our queues from culture. I believe there are biblical principles that can be applied in any given cultural context. We should stick to Scripture. Pants on women are not specifically condemned in Scripture. In fact, I remember reading how trousers were worn by women under their outer garments in colder regions during colder seasons. Everyday attire worn by both men and women were actually similar in ancient Israel.

But it doesn't matter. For even if they went to the extreme to condemn pants on women, even trousers under the outer garments during colder seasons, it matters little. Because the Jews were known for taking the Scriptures to an extreme beyond what they actually taught.

I still contend that the text speaks of the individual wearing that which pertains to the opposite gender as being an "abomination". This phrase is commonly used in reference to both idolatry and sexual perversions. Therefore, I contend that the text is addressing an idolatrous perversion that was common among the heathen, and is common even today among the "Drag Queen", cross dressing, gender bending, subculture. Who would deny that the perversion of cross dressing and gender bending is an "abomination" on par with homosexuality itself? In fact, one finds the cross dressing community littered with homosexuals and deviants practicing all manner of perversions.

This isn't a shallow condemnation of trousers, pants, pajamas, uniform pants, crotch-knit safety chaps/trousers, or Levi's on women. The rule isn't about a "style". This is the moral condemnation of a perversion, a confusion, a denial of gender that plays to sexual deviancy and perversion. It's far deeper and more serious a matter than Jordache jeans.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

We shouldn't take our queues from culture. I believe there are biblical principles that can be applied in any given cultural context. We should stick to Scripture. Pants on women are not specifically condemned in Scripture. In fact, I remember reading how trousers were worn by women under their outer garments in colder regions during colder seasons. Everyday attire worn by both men and women were actually similar in ancient Israel.

But it doesn't matter. For even if they went to the extreme to condemn pants on women, even trousers under the outer garments during colder seasons, it matters little. Because the Jews were known for taking the Scriptures to an extreme beyond what they actually taught.

I still contend that the text speaks of the individual wearing that which pertains to the opposite gender as being an "abomination". This phrase is commonly used in reference to both idolatry and sexual perversions. Therefore, I contend that the text is addressing an idolatrous perversion that was common among the heathen, and is common even today among the "Drag Queen", cross dressing, gender bending, subculture. Who would deny that the perversion of cross dressing and gender bending is an "abomination" on par with homosexuality itself? In fact, one finds the cross dressing community littered with homosexuals and deviants practicing all manner of perversions.

This isn't a shallow condemnation of trousers, pants, pajamas, uniform pants, crotch-knit safety chaps/trousers, or Levi's on women. The rule isn't about a "style". This is the moral condemnation of a perversion, a confusion, a denial of gender that plays to sexual deviancy and perversion. It's far deeper and more serious a matter than Jordache jeans.

You are insane. I mean absolutely certifiable.

You have racing thoughts, intrusive thoughts. SUPPOSEDLY that horrify you. You post that you are wanting to wake up and feel YOUR mind be still?!

Then within a few minutes you are having light fun posting about tacos and sour cream? Now you are going to teach us about clothes? Bro, holiness standards are the least of your problems. This forum is not helping you. Seriously, I believe you have mental issues, PTSD, not being one of them., because you give a bad name to that condition of the mind. Chris, you need to find an Apostolic Church and a pastor who is disciplined and patient enough to kick your rear end to the top of your head. Bro, you are a time bomb. Where will you be in ten years?

[Evang.Benincasa]

He posts that we shouldn't take our queues from culture, and then posts what about wearing a kilt?

Chris, you need help.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

He posts that we shouldn't take our queues from culture, and then posts what about wearing a kilt?

Chris, you need help.

There is a difference between taking examples from a given culture to define a text and then applying those examples to one's practice... and taking principles from scripture and simply applying those in a given culture.

It's simple. The gender bending perversion of cross dressing shouldn't be found among God's people.

Do you apply the same logic to high heeled shoes and hosiery as you apply to trousers? Because if you did apply the interpretation consistently, you'd have to say that both high heels and hosiery are an abomination on a woman. Because both were originally designed by men for men, and worn throughout popular culture by men when they were created.

But, with my concept, we have no issues. It's common sense. Today, heels and hosiery are a woman's attire, even if they were originally designed for and worn by men.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is a difference between taking examples from a given culture to define a text and then applying those examples to one's practice... and taking principles from scripture and simply applying those in a given culture.

The text is written in such a way as to make no doubt what they are saying. Hence the reason that men wear pants and women do not.

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's simple. The gender bending perversion of cross dressing shouldn't be found among God's people.

How dangerous religion truly is. That someone can shapeshift so rapidly in and out of the religious beliefs in order to walk among the sheep.

[QUOTE=Aquila;1537555]
Do you apply the same logic to high heeled shoes and hosiery as you apply to trousers?

What is a high heel, and why is there hosiery?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Because if you did apply the interpretation consistently,

How ironic, one minute you are having intrusive thoughts which are akin to a car alarm going off? Then in another minute you are talking about taking pictures of tacos? Consistency Chris?

Go find a church and a pastor.

Originally Posted by Aquila

you'd have to say that both high heels and hosiery are an abomination on a woman. Because both were originally designed by men for men, and worn throughout popular culture by men when they were created.

No they weren't. Again, you can find what you want on the internet to prove your side, and I can prove my side. Chris, all you want to do is bring doubt to the weak, sick, and discouraged. The hair thread has varying views by different Apostolics. You know what is the difference? They are looking to kill the young.

Originally Posted by Aquila

But, with my concept, we have no issues. It's common sense. Today, heels and hosiery are a woman's attire, even if they were originally designed for and worn by men.

There you folks, that is what this is all about.

[Aquila]

[QUOTE=Evang.Benincasa;1537559]The text is written in such a way as to make no doubt what they are saying. Hence the reason that men wear pants and women do not.



How dangerous religion truly is. That someone can shapeshift so rapidly in and out of the religious beliefs in order to walk among the sheep.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Do you apply the same logic to high heeled shoes and hosiery as you apply to trousers?

What is a high heel, and why is there hosiery?



How ironic, one minute you are having intrusive thoughts which are akin to a car alarm going off? Then in another minute you are talking about taking pictures of tacos? Consistency Chris?

Go find a church and a pastor.



No they weren't. Again, you can find what you want on the internet to prove your side, and I can prove my side. Chris, all you want to do is bring doubt to the weak, sick, and discouraged. The hair thread has varying views by different Apostolics. You know what is the difference? They are looking to kill the young.




There you folks, that is what this is all about.

The wise can see what offers common sense and balance, and what is purely rigid extremism. Allow them to examine the issue.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The wise can see what offers common sense and balance, and what is purely rigid extremism. Allow them to examine the issue.

While thinking yourself wise you become as a fool.

Chris, you are just bad logic which goes in the opposite direction. Yet, you have already told the forum that you have issues far greater than a bit of cloth. Go find an Apostolic Church, Church family, and Pastor.