Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[houston]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Yes

I didn’t really want an answer. Anyway, a lot of men’s underwear do not reach the thigh. If a man’s underwear don’t reach the thigh, is he sinning?

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by houston

You don’t know that.

I do, the Holy Ghost convicts me against watching TV, so He's not going to convict me of watcing T.V. and then start a TV show..

"For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." And He can't sin so.. He wouldn't have one, I know that I know, know!

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by houston

. If a man’s underwear don’t reach the thigh, is he sinning?

Huh? Makes no sense bro, that wasn't even the argument. What was being talked about was the design of the breeches were designed by God for men. A man doesn't have to wear them to not sin. Just that design was specifically made for a man, and any modification that was made of it longer or shorter come from this original design.

But no its not a sin for a man not to wear it. That's not at all what I was saying.

[houston]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I do, the Holy Ghost convicts me against watching TV, so He's not going to convict me of watcing T.V. and then start a TV show..

That’s not how this works.

[Amanah]

These were the questions that were asked in the beginning of the thread.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Did Jesus and other Jewish men wear a garment that visibly distinguished their clothes from the women of their culture?

Originally Posted by Costeon

Thank you to those who have responded so far, but, if possible, could you provide details about their clothing in the first century AD? I know we would assume that there was some sort of difference based on Deut 22.5, but what was that difference?

And the answer is that in the first century Jewish men wore pants

The pants in Ex 28 were priestly garments, specific to Aaron and his sons.
Jesus was a priest of the order of Melchizedek.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I was clear it was anything in the design long or short was made for men. We have scripture of God initiating the making of them. And then cultures through histories, even keeping the same name for them. So we don't have to worry about where the design came from, it came directly from God (and got scripture to prove it..) , and we see through history they were always intended for men. So they weren't just undergarments, as y'all tried to claim, you and Costeon were saying "these are just male undergarments like boxers." Well according to history that isn't true.

Y'all can deny hard evidence all you want, but should I follow your opinion or what is clearly seen from scripture and history?

Hey maybe I should share with you this ground breaking piece of evidence. Any 5 year old can read it. This is the universal sign for bathroom.. Hey and it even says Feman for female, but she still put a dress on. Good for her!

I wouldn't take theology from bathroom signs. Besides, her skirt is too short.

But seriously. I do see your point. Regardless of what women might wear, it is culturally accepted throughout the world that the basic attire of a well mannered and modest woman includes a dress or skirt.

However, there are other elements to consider. They say that the sun never set on the British Empire. The British colonized most of the known world. With them they brought Western values, styles of dress, mannerisms, and customs. Many cultures had norms forced upon them that were alien to their. Add to the mix France, Portugal, Spain, and other nations who colonized the known world importing Western culture and styles of dress.

My point is, these signs reflect styles of dress that were imported to most of the known world. In many cases, they do not always reflect the indigenous norms as it relates to gender.

But, nevertheless, I do see your point.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I wouldn't take theology from bathroom signs. Besides, her skirt is too short.

They also have no feet, no necks, no faces, and no hair.

Good grief.

Originally Posted by Aquila

But seriously. I do see your point. Regardless of what women might wear, it is culturally accepted throughout the world that the basic attire of a well mannered and modest woman includes a dress or skirt.

Culturally accepted throughout Christendom for hundreds of years.

Joan of Arch, should've listened to her Pastor!!!

Originally Posted by Aquila

However, there are other elements to consider. They say that the sun never set on the British Empire. The British colonized most of the known world. With them they brought Western values, styles of dress, mannerisms, and customs. Many cultures had norms forced upon them that were alien to their. Add to the mix France, Portugal, Spain, and other nations who colonized the known world importing Western culture and styles of dress.

My point is, these signs reflect styles of dress that were imported to most of the known world. In many cases, they do not always reflect the indigenous norms as it relates to gender.

The sun never set on the Babylonian empire, Persian empire, Greek Empire, Roman Empire, Roman Catholic empire, United States Empire.

The indigenous norms are those of pagan barbarians. I believe Esaias clarified that all too well for us. By these few words, "they were called savages for a reason."

[Evang.Benincasa]

The bathroom sign can be understood universally worldwide, because of the Western Christian influence.

But don't worry Chris, your NPR Bernie Sanderite bleeding heart liberal crew is hastening Gender Neutrality into society pretty quick.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Ok length or not, any garment made like that is for a man. I don't care who designated it. We don't have to worry about what does pertain unto a man or a woman. He has not left us without a idea.

Theres no further answer to find, if you want me to be honest I believe this is talking about dress as well as a woman trying to usurp and rule over a man. Or a man trying to dress or act and be led by a woman. I think they are all an abomination unto the Lord thy God.

So while pants matter they truthfully are the least of the matter. So a woman pastor, or president we don't have to wonder how God feels about that. A woman that tries to lead her husband also, the same way. And is exactly why the old adage says "we know who wears the pants in that relationship." Where do you think all these things come from, as if its such a mystery about gender distinctions in dress? As we see they are as old as Moses. But we get to some place in time and think they we need to reinvent the wheel. Even though this is normal in our society, it's not normal for any society before us. Oh I take that back, besides pagan societies, entrenched in idol worship. It's not hard to figure out which ones correct. Or shouldn't be. They done got so bad in our society people don't even know what bathroom to use... It all speaks for itself.

ok I am going to ask you an honest question.. I am trying to understand your logic. Why do you ignore Exodus 28:1-2? This specifically states who this chapter is written to. I guess in a way I understand the "made for a man" view you have since Aaron and the priest were males. Then you ignore verses 3-41 and suddenly verse 42 out of the same context, same book, same chapter a steadfast doctrine is created. You ignore several verses of apparel litigation and cherrypick one verse. Why is not verse 40 a doctrine?? Then again in verse 43 we are reminded who these instructions are for. Then you state "any garment made like this is for a man". Can you explain what you mean by "made like this" specifically?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I do, the Holy Ghost convicts me against watching TV, so He's not going to convict me of watcing T.V. and then start a TV show..

"For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." And He can't sin so.. He wouldn't have one, I know that I know, know!

I'm being light here, this is in no way condemnatory or meant to be nasty spirited. But I wanted to mention something because I have seen statements like this from time to time.

God convicted me about purchasing a firearm. I was in the military for 8 years, so I'm not stranger to weapons (19K, 91B10). I had my eye on a beautiful Springfield XD. I've fired them and the weapon had a nice feel. So, I put aside some cash and chose to buy one. As I was in Gander Mountain looking at the weapon and about to purchase it, I felt the Holy Spirit speak to me. I felt the Lord impress upon me that if I purchased that weapon, my family's protection would be entirely upon me. Now, please understand, God didn't say that it would be a sin to own a firearm. But He told "me" that as it relates to "my family" the purchase of a firearm would negate divine protection.

So, I didn't purchase the weapon.

That was one of the strongest impressions I've ever received from the Lord. But I realize, that was for me. Now, I've never been deeply convicted about television, sporting events, beaches, shorts, or facial hair. But, I understand that some people say they have been. And I can respect that.

Now, God convicted me regarding owning a firearm. But I shouldn't assume that God is entirely non-violent or that owning a firearm is a sin. And, so, though God might have convicted you against television, that doesn't mean that television in and of itself is "sin", nor does it mean that it would be impossible for Him to use television. The one thing we can know about God is, He will do as He chooses.

But, I will say, I don't think Jesus would be a televangelist or anything remotely like that. This we'd probably agree on.

Stick to your convictions. What God has directed you to do, be sure to do it. But I think that all of us, including me, need to remind ourselves that God often convicts us for our sakes, it isn't always a rule to be enforced across the board.

I just wanted to throw that out there.