Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
Here we go with misrepresentation of the discussion. I had originally discussed the language of the verse. I used the Greek Old Testament the 3rd century B.C. (the Old Testament used by Jesus and the Apostles), the Latin Vulgate 382 A.D., and the Masoretic text 1524 A.D.. I also repeatedly offered Revelation 19:16 to show that on Jesus' vesture and thigh meaning pants were written. Not that Jesus was tattooed. I pointed out that the Lexicographers where undecided on the Aramaic concerning the word for trousers in Daniel. Yet, did I or Pliny, or Esaias say anything about the color red? No. FZ, don't do that. Especially since you believe, teach, and have a book which attempts to prove that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation of an original Hebrew copy. While you yourself bring up a plethora of circumstantial evidence to present your case. Shame, my friend and brother. To excuse me of believing in such stupid garbage as teaching against shade of color. Still love you and respect you. No wide grin green emoji here. |
Come on Benincasa,
You are part of a small minority of anti-pants preachers, which is shrinking every year. Many preachers have stopped preaching the anti-pants on women doctrine, they may still officially adhered to it, but in practice they have already quietly acquiescence to the changing times.
I have hope that eventually you too will one day realize the error of your wrong interpretation of
Deut 22:5 and will silently without much of a ruckus will drop the anti-pants on woman rants.
