Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I was joking, its hilarious you think I have a bad attitude though, means a lot coming from you. And I never said pants would send anyone to hell I just said what the scripture says"God said its abomination unto Him." But hey Joes opinion is much more important.

And I am telling you that your interpretation of Deut.22:5 is wrong! As for you joking.. that's cool I get it the problem with the typed word is tone is impossible to pick up.

[Amanah]

man in Deut 22:5, a woman shall not wear a warriors attire.

בֶר geber, gheh'-ber; from H1396; properly, a valiant man or warrior; generally, a person simply:—every one, man, × mighty.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

One of the arguments pertaining to Deut 22:5 was that it was addressing women wearing attire of warfare and weapons. So I am not sure that arguing for women to wear a military uniform works in that context.

I know, many Jewish sources take this position. And yes, it would prohibit a woman serving in the military.

But, seeing that many women in the Bible participated in armed combat and military action, I don't see that as being applicable. The reference to it being an "abomination" rings of some form of sexual perversion. So, I contend that it is more about the perversion of cross dressing and gender bending that was common among the pagans and even the godless in our society.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

I am glad everyone is not like me, that would make the world a very strange place. There is not one post I have made where I have cried about any one not being like me. You are a master of taking things out of context and twisting words. Bashing and disagreeing are two different things. I am sure you are a fine outstanding citizen however you come across as a …… well nevermind… you are to conceited and arrogant to see your own flaws.. so never mind... you are welcome to point out mine as I know you will but guess what I am way ahead of you I know my downfalls.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Amanah

man (geber) in Deut 22:5, a woman shall not wear a warriors attire.

בֶר geber, gheh'-ber; from H1396; properly, a valiant man or warrior; generally, a person simply:—every one, man, × mighty.

****
Ancient Pants

The wearing of pants in Western culture probably arose with the equestrian warrior cultures of Asia minor. The Sythians of the area encompassed by today's Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Romania wore loose pants tucked into boots. A portrait of a warrior wearing pants appears on a cup found in a burial site from 770 BC.

The Greek historian Herodotus mentions the Sythians waring pants. Herodotus also mentions that the Amazons (female warriors of Greek mythology) as clad in trousers. An Amazon depicted on a vessel in 470 BC is obviously wearing pants.

Pants were adapted from the Sythians by the Persians (of modern Iran) by the 5th century BC.

The Celts, a nomadic people of Central Europe, wore pants, though documentation is sketchy at best. The style, copied from Sythians and Persians, spread through Central Europe around the third century BC.

Ancient Greeks and Romans equated the wearing of trousers with savagery and referred to those early trouser clad people as barbarians. When the Romans conquered Celtic Briton in the first century AD, they called the Irish "wild people." But as cultures mixed, Roman soldiers took to wearing a form of pants called braccae that resembled a pair of tight Capris, and were much more appropriate for cold weather climates than togas.

Braccae is the Latin root of the word breeches, a type of knee length trouser. Braccae, however, had adjustable hems and could be worn knee length or ankle length.

The Thorsberg Trousers pictured on the right are a relic from the 4th century AC and were found in Denmark.

Damendorf Man, a bog body found in 1900, perished between 140 - 380 AD. A pair of neatly folded pants was found near the corpse.

https://bellatory.com/fashion-indust...estern-Culture

[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.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

****
Ancient Pants

The wearing of pants in Western culture probably arose with the equestrian warrior cultures of Asia minor. The Sythians of the area encompassed by today's Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Romania wore loose pants tucked into boots. A portrait of a warrior wearing pants appears on a cup found in a burial site from 770 BC.

The Greek historian Herodotus mentions the Sythians waring pants. Herodotus also mentions that the Amazons (female warriors of Greek mythology) as clad in trousers. An Amazon depicted on a vessel in 470 BC is obviously wearing pants.

Pants were adapted from the Sythians by the Persians (of modern Iran) by the 5th century BC.

The Celts, a nomadic people of Central Europe, wore pants, though documentation is sketchy at best. The style, copied from Sythians and Persians, spread through Central Europe around the third century BC.

Ancient Greeks and Romans equated the wearing of trousers with savagery and referred to those early trouser clad people as barbarians. When the Romans conquered Celtic Briton in the first century AD, they called the Irish "wild people." But as cultures mixed, Roman soldiers took to wearing a form of pants called braccae that resembled a pair of tight Capris, and were much more appropriate for cold weather climates than togas.

Braccae is the Latin root of the word breeches, a type of knee length trouser. Braccae, however, had adjustable hems and could be worn knee length or ankle length.

The Thorsberg Trousers pictured on the right are a relic from the 4th century AC and were found in Denmark.

Damendorf Man, a bog body found in 1900, perished between 140 - 380 AD. A pair of neatly folded pants was found near the corpse.

https://bellatory.com/fashion-indust...estern-Culture

If read in the legalistic manner, it should be noted that the verse indicates "anything" worn by a person that was designed for the opposite gender. So, wouldn't that make T-shirts, high heels, and even hosiery an abomination on a woman... because all of these things were originally designed by and for men when they were created.

That's why I believe we do best to let go of the need to seek queues from local culture from ancient times. In addition, the Jews had a tendency to take the laws to a legalistic extreme, leaving behind the heart and soul of what was actually being commanded.

The verse isn't about pants or male body armor for soldiers. It's own wording is far more broad and general than that. I believe that is because the text is about anything that contributes to the perversion of cross dressing and presenting one's self as the opposite gender. It states that the one who does this is an abomination, not the attire itself. Thus, something in the heart of the individual involved is being condemned.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If read in the legalistic manner, it should be noted that the verse indicates "anything" worn by a person that was designed for the opposite gender. So, wouldn't that make T-shirts, high heels, and even hosiery an abomination on a woman... because all of these things were originally designed by and for men when they were created.

That's why I believe we do best to let go of the need to seek queues from local culture from ancient times. In addition, the Jews had a tendency to take the laws to a legalistic extreme, leaving behind the heart and soul of what was actually being commanded.

The verse isn't about pants or male body armor for soldiers. It's own wording is far more broad and general than that. I believe that is because the text is about anything that contributes to the perversion of cross dressing and presenting one's self as the opposite gender. It states that the one who does this is an abomination, not the attire itself. Thus, something in the heart of the individual involved is being condemned.

how do you suggest we define gender distinction?

[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.