Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

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?

.
Look let me make this clear. A T shirt we have no scripture where it came from. Nor shoes, or anything else. But this article of clothing has scripture connected to it. So I'm not trying to state anything but the obvious out of scripture, it was created by God for men!

Now, with that said, if I create a short sleeve shirt. And someone comes out with a long sleeve or shorter sleeve shirt, then they have modified my creation. But they got the design from what came first i.e. the short sleeve shirt. Im speaking basic common sense here, if we can see in scripture an article as breeches was made for men (the priests) by God, then any modification of the style of it, should go into the same category, considering we see the origin in scripture.

I don't know what y'all thought I was saying, but this is all I'm pointing out. Then that history even pointed to an article which could be longer with the same name from another culture. Letting you know where the origin came from, because you can read about it. It's a established firm thing, we can read about it in scripture. My Grandpa was a old bohemian red neck and he always told me to "pull your breeches (but he said britches, he was country as all get out) boy!!" Now where did he get that term from? I've been speaking of basic knowledge is all, i wasn't exegeting a passage..

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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

Well, clearly they're abominations. lol

Culturally accepted throughout Christendom for hundreds of years.

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

LOL

She was psycho. lol

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

It's my understanding that the phrase means that the British Empire had colonized land on every continent around the globe. Therefore, at any given moment, the sun was shining somewhere on the British Empire. I don't think the same can be said of the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans. The "Roman Catholic Empire"? One would have to be more specific. The "United States Empire"? I can see how that can be said.

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."

I believe humanity as a whole is savage. Oh, we're more sophisticated. But the same old savage practices can be found in our culture that were found in almost any other culture. It's just more sleek, technological, "respectable" to people's modern sensibilities.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not arguing for gender neutrality just because I disagree with your take on Deuteronomy 22:5. Do you ever frame those who disagree with you honestly?

[Evang.Benincasa]

The stick to your own conviction mantra is a virtual snowball down hill.
God convicts guy from buying a gun. But God doesn’t convict the guy from smoking marijuana. Another guy gets conviction against watching cartoons on Sunday morning with his kids, yet has no conviction at noticing the shape of women in pants. That’s not my conviction mantra is just that a mantra.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

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?

I think the whole debate is stupid.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is clearly about cross-dressing, gender bending, perversion, and gender confusion, and even homosexual desire. All these perversions where common place in the pagan peoples around Israel. Even the Sodomite temple prostitutes who were later in the very temple of God were cross-dressing and conducting their gender bending pagan rituals and seducing worshipers to have sex with them. It makes perfect sense for God to forbid such things.

Those who say that this text is about pants are dumbing down the seriousness of this text, the severity of the sin in question, and its current relevance in our own gender confused culture. It's not about pants on a woman, it's not about if T-shirts permitted on women. It's not about what culture wore what, when, and why. It's not about women dawning weapons or body armor. It's about a sickening sexual perversion, an abomination.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The stick to your own conviction mantra is a virtual snowball down hill.
God convicts guy from buying a gun. But God doesn’t convict the guy from smoking marijuana. Another guy gets conviction against watching cartoons on Sunday morning with his kids, yet has no conviction at noticing the shape of women in pants. That’s not my conviction mantra is just that a mantra.

I think that can be said in some cases. You're not entirely wrong here.

But at the same time, God guides us individually too. God knows what is best for us and our families on a very personal and individual level. That will come as one cultivates a "personal relationship" with God.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not arguing for gender neutrality just because I disagree with your take on Deuteronomy 22:5. Do you ever frame those who disagree with you honestly?

No, it’s where all your liberal views eventually lead towards.
I’m real sorry if can’t see the forest for the trees but X Pentecostals are the worst at all of this. This just didn’t come from an argument over bifurcated apparel, and length of hair. This argument leads straight for a cliff. Where it is now starring us in the face. Gender neutrality. Unisex movement started in the 60s and now it has engulfed this country. Roles are changing, and lines are being erased. Yet only a smoking liberal can miss all that is happening. Ship is sinking, and the clock is ticking. Yet you advocate marijuana use? How off do we need to get in American Churchanity.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think that can be said in some cases. You're not entirely wrong here.

But at the same time, God guides us individually too. God knows what is best for us and our families on a very personal and individual level. That will come as one cultivates a "personal relationship" with God.

But what about someone under the influence of Marijuna? God is speaking to him? A individual fogged out with reeefer to cloud his mind? Therefore as much as the racing thoughts are suppressed by the THC, logically also the voice of God. Personal relationship out the window. Also the convictions seem to run mild to wild with the supposed Christian gurus who either have a conviction or have no conviction. If you have no book, or historical findings you can go all over the place. Which sadly your group does, and often.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No, it’s where all your liberal views eventually lead towards.
I’m real sorry if can’t see the forest for the trees but X Pentecostals are the worst at all of this. This just didn’t come from an argument over bifurcated apparel, and length of hair. This argument leads straight for a cliff. Where it is now starring us in the face. Gender neutrality. Unisex movement started in the 60s and now it has engulfed this country. Roles are chafing and lines are being erased. Yet only a smoking liberal can miss all that is happening. Ship is sinking, and the clock is ticking. Yet you advocate marijuana use? How off do we need to get in American Churchanity.

Look, Christians should be honest EB. Be honest is all that I'm saying. Until you're honest, you might have everyone here wowed by your knowledge, and you are knowledgeable, but your dishonesty taints everything you have to say. For example. Read the post above. Put yourself in the shoes of one to whom it might be written. Does it sound like a man of God? If it does, you've had some lousy men of God in your life too, welcome to the club.

- We were discussing medicinal value of cannabis. I voiced that one shouldn't be condemned as a sinner for seeking natural remedies or relief. That's all. I'm not saying one should buy a dime bag and go party. I'm talking about people with very serious and often painful conditions. You're distorting what I'm saying.

- I've clearly indicated that pants can be said to be immodest and therefore a Christian woman seeking to live by principles of Christian modesty does well to wear skirts and dresses. A woman's quest for Christian modesty will invariably lead her to not wearing pants. But you are saying that I'm for "gender neutrality" and a "unisex movement"? Again, you're distorting what I'm saying.

That's called lying about a person EB. Yes, you've lied and are lying. You've even lied and misrepresented the views and statements of others here. A lie is a lie EB. Man up and face the truth. You're motives might be good, but if you have to lie and slander a person to prop up your position, it only proves that it is powerless.

The only reason why you have so much "dirt" on me to include in your constant wave of slander, venom, and misrepresentation is... because I've been painfully honest about my life. Am I perfect? No. Is everything conventional? No. But I've been honest about it. I could have easily put forth a far more "respectable" or "traditional" persona. But I told the truth in response to questions asked of me. Even if the truth opened me up to criticism. And criticism will come. I'm not talking about constructive criticism. I'm talking about blatant lies and distortions of things I've said and things others have said.

I'm not perfect. But, I try to be honest. Can you at least try to be honest? Because if you can't, then you have some deeper problems that you're not willing to address.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think the whole debate is stupid.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is clearly about cross-dressing, gender bending, perversion, and gender confusion, and even homosexual desire. All these perversions where common place in the pagan peoples around Israel. Even the Sodomite temple prostitutes who were later in the very temple of God were cross-dressing and conducting their gender bending pagan rituals and seducing worshipers to have sex with them. It makes perfect sense for God to forbid such things.

Those who say that this text is about pants are dumbing down the seriousness of this text, the severity of the sin in question, and its current relevance in our own gender confused culture. It's not about pants on a woman, it's not about if T-shirts permitted on women. It's not about what culture wore what, when, and why. It's not about women dawning weapons or body armor. It's about a sickening sexual perversion, an abomination.

If the debate is about cross dressing? isn't a man wearing a dress cross dressing?