Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

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

God was instructing Israel on the attire of the priesthood. Not issuing fashion advice for the entire culture like some Vogue magazine fashionista.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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

You don't do that. There is a thread on this forum concerning this subject and you pasted it with pictures. You also offered two articles which don't only deal with scripture but bring up history. So, history is good as long as it is to your advantage? OK, I'll keep that in mind for this, and whatever else you post from here on out. Good job Chris. Your breath must smell of foot.

Originally Posted by Aquila

If pants were so common, as you've stated, why doesn't the Bible specifically condemn them as it does other things?

Bible doesn't jot down every article of clothing, if it did you would win this argument. Yet, you go round and round looking for historical drawings on the internet.

Originally Posted by Aquila

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?

That's because you don't know what the verse is actually saying. It uses words that are male specific and female specific.

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

Chris it isn't cannabis, that was the generic Hebrew word for cane, any kind.

So, when you are deceiving the people of God that reefer is cool with God, you have no scripture. Hey, don't feel so bad, dopers also believe the mushroom was manna from heaven.

Originally Posted by Aquila

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?

Holy oil? Chris, it wasn't reefer. China? Bro, the Chinese were pagans they also did all sorts of drugs mixed with their religion

Originally Posted by Aquila

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?

Chris, your so called research is all around you of those who smoked all their lives. Who gave it up because even though they smoked weed they were even more tortured. Because the THC amplified their intrusive thoughts!!!!

Chris you have zero idea of what you speak.

Originally Posted by Aquila

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?

Chris, because it is a mind medication, and these people don't have the benefit of knowing that there is another way. The Holy Ghost. Chris, if you ever had received the Holy Ghost you wouldn't seek another way. Because you would have the peace that passeth all understanding. You would know that marijuana can't eclipse the power of the Holy Ghost.

Originally Posted by Aquila

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?

Believed reports?

Chris, did you smoke tea leaves in Amsterdam?

You have had myself and three other posters tell you of their testimonies of drug culture. If you had any idea of what you speak you would acknowledge what we have witnessed to you. I haven't read anything concerning dope from the Nixon Administration. You might of. But the Bible says don't go after φαρμάκων which is listed among things like theft. So, there is your book.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

God was instructing Israel on the attire of the priesthood. Not issuing fashion advice for the entire culture like some Vogue magazine fashionista.

I guess Chris is saying that people who were not directly under Zacheus while he was in the tree were fortunate.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

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??

What argument?

Men wear pants, and women should not.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

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

By the way, I think it is Exodus 28:42, that you're talking about. Not "Leviticus 28:42".

Exodus 28:42
And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

God commanded this because the functions of the priest included walking up the stairs of the altar in front of the people. Obviously, according to common attire at the time, if the priest didn't wear breeches, his "nakedness" would be exposed as he climbed the stairs before the people. Therefore, God found it necessary to issue directions for the attire of the priest.

So much for the notion of every male wearing Levi's 3,000 years ago. Because if they were wearing pants on a regular basis, there'd be no need for the direction in order to cover the priest's nakedness.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

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

Is there a thing as same gender marriage?

The women jeans came first and it was all down hill from there.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

God commanded this because the functions of the priest included walking up the stairs of the altar in front of the people. Obviously, according to common attire at the time, if the priest didn't wear breeches, his "nakedness" would be exposed as he climbed the stairs before the people. Therefore, God found it necessary to issue directions for the attire of the priest.

So much for the notion of every male wearing Levi's 3,000 years ago. Because if they were wearing pants on a regular basis, there'd be no need for the direction in order to cover the priest's nakedness.

Everyone had to cover their eyes when they looked up at Zacchaeus in the tree?

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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

Bro God Himself didnt design the watch, or initiate its invention. On this article of clothing He did, and for a man..

[1ofthechosen]

I listened to this morning. Hear what Brother Bobby Killmon has to say on the subject. (Its funny he talks about hair, cigarettes drinking, fornication, pants on women, tattoos and piercings, and tongues as the initial evidence.) These are becoming universal areas that spirit wants to conquer us apparently. Start the video at 37:42.
Btw he is the Dean of Biblical Studies at Indiana Bible College.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Aquila

By the way, I think it is Exodus 28:42, that you're talking about. Not "Leviticus 28:42".

Exodus 28:42
And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

God commanded this because the functions of the priest included walking up the stairs of the altar in front of the people. Obviously, according to common attire at the time, if the priest didn't wear breeches, his "nakedness" would be exposed as he climbed the stairs before the people. Therefore, God found it necessary to issue directions for the attire of the priest.

So much for the notion of every male wearing Levi's 3,000 years ago. Because if they were wearing pants on a regular basis, there'd be no need for the direction in order to cover the priest's nakedness.

It is Exodus thanks for pointing that out, ai edited it.