Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

It's not about what will send you to hell, but what as the scripture says "all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." I can't send one person to heaven or hell, its above my pay grade. But God said its an abomination unto Him, despite who was doing it. In the 18th century they didn't have the Holy Ghost (besides in small cells) so it couldn't lead them into all truth. We don't have that problem!

….ummm what?? so much wrong here..

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

In the 18th century they didn't have the Holy Ghost (besides in small cells)

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

It's not about what will send you to hell, but what as the scripture says "all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." I can't send one person to heaven or hell, its above my pay grade. But God said its an abomination unto Him, despite who was doing it. In the 18th century they didn't have the Holy Ghost (besides in small cells) so it couldn't lead them into all truth. We don't have that problem!

that will preach

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Ok where was the Holy Ghost being poured out at? In what group? If you can name one let me know. Otherwise your pretty much believing in the light doctrine.

I mean the Holy Ghost was available, but they weren't seeking it. Only in small groups, so small we don't even know about them. Not that the Holy Ghost wasn't available though. They believed that the gifts had ceased for thr most part. That was during the 1,000 plus years of the great falling away Paul speaks of in Thessalonians.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Ok where was the Holy Ghost being poured out at? In what group? If you can name one let me know. Otherwise your pretty much believing in the light doctrine.

Bro, there is always someone baptizing in Jesus name, and getting the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues. We aren't a New Issue. Jesus name baptism wasn't something that just was discovered in the turn of the century. Also new light doctrine is that you are saved according to the amount of soteriological knowledge you had at the time of your death. Meaning if Granma believed that all you had to do is shake the preacher's hand and say the sinner's prayer, because that was all she knew then she is saved in that light. No she is as toast as toast can be toast. We have a Bible, that Bible has it all, and there are alway going to be preachers who will be preaching Apostolic Truth since they fired the starting gun at Pentecost.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, there is always someone baptizing in Jesus name, and getting the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues. We aren't a New Issue. Jesus name baptism wasn't something that just was discovered in the turn of the century. Also new light doctrine is that you are saved according to the amount of soteriological knowledge you had at the time of your death. Meaning if Granma believed that all you had to do is shake the preacher's hand and say the sinner's prayer, because that was all she knew then she is saved in that light. No she is as toast as toast can be toast. We have a Bible, that Bible has it all, and there are alway going to be preachers who will be preaching Apostolic Truth since they fired the starting gun at Pentecost.

My whole point of saying only in small groups because that wasn't the majority, and they were so small we don't know who they were. And I meant you believed in the light doctrine if you believe that the Holy Ghost was being poured out in the same capacity it is in these days. Being we can't name one Oneness group that was widely preaching these things in the 1700's.

But I know its always been preached and taught, but the majority was falling away, and didn't even believe that the gifts were available at the time. So the people that created these "Pantaloons" were most likely not full of the Holy Ghost, and were steeped in false doctrine.

[Bro Flame]

So it's wrong for ladies to wear pants? Even if they are made specifically for them?

Just in such of some clarification on what some here have said.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Holy Roller

So it's wrong for ladies to wear pants? Even if they are made specifically for them?

Just in such of some clarification on what some here have said.

Is it alright for a man to wear a dress, even if its specifically made for a man?

[Aquila]

The Scriptures state...

Deuteronomy 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Now, there are two ways to look at this.

First, one can look at this and say that anything from pantyloons to high heeled shoes are an abomination to God on a woman. Why? Because, as previously stated, pantyloons allow a woman's foot to proceed through the clothing. And, high heeled shoes were originally designed by and for men. This position will focus in on the exacting histories and cultural relevance of specific articles of clothing. In the end, those who hold this position will tell people specifically what to wear based on human opinion and cultural relevance. To this position the style of attire itself can prove to be an abomination against God.

Second, one can look at this as addressing the gender bending perversion of cross dressing and gender confusion, which was not only common among pagan peoples, but even in our day is riddled with perverse performance, homosexuality, and sexual debauchery. Those who take this position do not focus so much on the design, history, and specifics of various articles of clothing, but rather, they focus in on perversion and gender confusion. In the end, those who hold this position will accept current norms of attire, but will admonish properly dressing, and behaving in accordance to proper gender norms. To this position, violation of established gender norms through cross dressing, homosexuality, or gender confusion can prove to be an abomination against God.

Both positions have pros and cons.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

My whole point of saying only in small groups because that wasn't the majority,

Matthew 7:13-14 brother I don't want to be with a majority, we want to be with the few. Me and you

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

and they were so small we don't know who they were.

You might not know who they were. But they knew who they were.

1860s in the Okefenokee there were Pentecostal families, in upstate New York outside Albany were house churches who baptized in Jesus name and spoke in tongues. These groups didn't need no Azusa Charismatic hootananny , they had book, chapter, and verse Bible.

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

And I meant you believed in the light doctrine if you believe that the Holy Ghost was being poured out in the same capacity it is in these days.

Oh, yeah, I'm just tripping over Apostolic Pentecostals wherever I go.

Bro, the same Holy Ghost that was poured out at Pentecost is the same Holy Ghost that was poured out today. It never stopped, if someone obeyed the Word they got the Holy Ghost. Just thank God for men who read their Bibles.

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Being we can't name one Oneness group that was widely preaching these things in the 1700's.

There are people who don't know a lot of things doesn't mean it didn't exist

So, because there wasn't an official fellowship, card holding preachers? Is that what you are looking for?

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

But I know its always been preached and taught, but the majority was falling away, and didn't even believe that the gifts were available at the time. So the people that created these "Pantaloons" were most likely not full of the Holy Ghost, and were steeped in false doctrine.

Well a Mormon did invent the TV.