Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[Amanah]

plus we need to clear up the issue of pantyhose being an abomination or not.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

This is why I wish the Apostolic Church would reject fads and fashions of the world. If we had a true desire to be separate from the world we would see this kind of thing coming from miles away. I understand to a certain point we allow the world to set the fashion of the day for the church, but we should be more focused on being pleasing to God than dolling ourselves up to fit in with this world's fashion and culture. Since when did Jesus die to save culture.

Deuteronomy 22:5 never states intent only action so IMAO the action regardless of the intent will be looked at by God as sin.

I wander why we draw a line around pants and skirts as if these two are the only garments that pertain to one or the other gender?

Is it OK for a woman to wear a man's shirt, jacket, boots?
Is it OK for a man to wear a woman's shirt, jacket, boots?

can a woman put on a mans sports jacket to stay warm in a cold church?
can a man put on a woman's blouse to stay warm in a cold church?

Do we ignore every other type of gender specific attire because we only care about skirts and pants, or do we incorporate all gender specific attire.

What does the scripture say?

Hence the reason why Aquila's logic pertains to his own specific unigender society. Which the boundary would have to be removed logically. He knows that, and now is positioning you to go round and round with him.

He is using fashions to be able to take everyone down his rabbit hole.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Pants, are male attire.

Dresses and skirts are female attire.

That is simple.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is dealing with men look like men and act like men, and women look like women and act like women.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think the question begs an understanding of intent. I'd like to point out something about Deuteronomy 22:5...

Deuteronomy 22:5 King James Version (KJV)
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.

The way I read it is that all the individuals who do this are an abomination against God. No article of clothing in and of itself is the abomination. It is the individual, which implies a distinct sinful disposition in the person, a perversion, if you will.

of course the article is not the abomination. So your saying the person is an abomination before the act of wearing the other genders clothing and is come to fruition by the event of putting on the other genders clothes?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Hence the reason why Aquila's logic pertains to his own specific unigender society. Which the boundary would have to be removed logically. He knows that, and now is positioning you to go round and round with him.

He is using fashions to be able to take everyone down his rabbit hole.

There's another side to this that I haven't brought up yet.

So far, I've only made a couple small points:

1.) Deuteronomy 22:5, with its multiple interpretations, and the obvious questions it generates to be applied consistently, is not a good proof text from which to teach against pants.

2.) Verses admonishing women to Christian modesty such as 1 Timothy 2:9 are more than sufficient to warrant the admonishment that women shouldn't wear pants.

The third point that I haven't touched on yet is...

3.) The guidance of the elders.

Those who pastor have some leeway to define modesty and appropriate attire in the body. Upon the creation of the T-shirt, a pastor would have been justified in admonishing women not to wear T-shirts. But, after a generation or two, if the T-shirt no longer bears the association of being strictly part of a man's attire, the elders can relax that standard. This way, the shepherds can lock the flock into a safe practice until the way of any "fad" is determined. If it is just a provocative gender bending fad, the pastors will have prevented participation in the uni-gender fad. However, if it becomes a norm in attire for both men and women (as did T-shirts), the elders in the future can relax the standard and allow the church to find its footing in the culture. This is a good thing, especially seeing that the previously established standard against T-shirts (in this example) would prove to become increasingly archaic and legalistic.

[JoeBandy]

What percentage of women that you have seen in your lifetime, wearing a pair of pants , did you have trouble figuring out their gender?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

of course the article is not the abomination. So your saying the person is an abomination before the act of wearing the other genders clothing and is come to fruition by the event of putting on the other genders clothes?

Truly an awesome question!

I think if we look at the verse through NT understanding, that would be Christ's take on it. All sin originates in the heart, long before it becomes an action. Anyone man who even longs to dress as a woman and present himself as such... has already committed this abomination in his heart.

Or do you propose that such logic only applies to lusting to commit adultery?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

What percentage of women that you have seen in your lifetime, wearing a pair of pants , did you have trouble figuring out their gender?

Very few. Women's pants tend to accentuate a woman's curves so as to draw distinction. However, this distinction is not modestly dawn. It's immodestly presented. And so, any pastor would do well to admonish a woman not to wear pants as she pursues a life of Christian modesty.

As for what percentage have I seen in my lifetime wherein I had trouble drawing distinction? Hmmm... as said above, very few. I think the first was "Pat" from SNL.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

What percentage of women that you have seen in your lifetime, wearing a pair of pants , did you have trouble figuring out their gender?

Come to Wilton Manors Florida.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Very few. Women's pants tend to accentuate a woman's curves so as to draw distinction.

No they don't.

Originally Posted by Aquila

However, this distinction is not modestly dawn. It's immodestly presented. And so, any pastor would do well to admonish a woman not to wear pants as she pursues a life of Christian modesty.

So, if YOU were a pastor, you would tell women in the church to wear a dress because you could see their shape because of their jeans? Good job, and good grief