Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Most of the women I work with think it's cape...

like supergirl wears?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Russia?

Why is there a spider under the woman in a cape? LOL

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

like supergirl wears?

Yes! Every woman knows what it's like to be the local superhero, especially if she has kids.

[Aquila]

Is it a sin for men to wear lady's Jordache jeans?

If so, why?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Costeon

If this OT passage still pertains to us, we don't get to expand the definition of this underwear. In short, what is being described here is like boxer shorts. I'm sure all our sisters in the Lord will be crushed at not being able to wear boxers under their skirts or pants. :-)

Thank you! Good grief. LOL!

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Costeon

If this OT passage still pertains to us, we don't get to expand the definition of this underwear. In short, what is being described here is like boxer shorts. I'm sure all our sisters in the Lord will be crushed at not being able to wear boxers under their skirts or pants. :-)

No one is trying expand a definition. God shows where He prescribed this unto men. Now anything whether long or short is the same design. If I take a pair of pants and cut them they become shorts.

We have scripture in the word of God that is very clear on this, and who prescribed them God. Who He prescribed them to men. So when Deut. 22:5 says"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."

We don't have to wonder if pants fit in there. Anything as Exodus 28:42 says that "from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach", is covered. And anything made like it is clearly made for men per the scripture.

But at this point just like with the hair if you want to obey God you can,and if you want to do your own thing you can. But the scripture is clear on this so we need not to wonder about pants. Pants and shorts are the same thing, and any garment made like it. They come from the same design..

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Costeon

If this OT passage still pertains to us,

Anything God says He hates He hates for all time or do you believe He changes? What translation of the Bible do you use? The Benjamin Franlin Edition? Or maybe like how the Church of Christ does throwing out all the OT?

The moral law is anything He says He hates, He hates for all time.. And He says He hates this exact thing. All I can say is, " It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

But at this point I'm finished here. If you aren't going to bend to the Word of God, how am I ever going to get through?? Have a good night, Revival time!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rdp

*I would assume you extrapolate this belief from Deut. 22.5 in part. Yet, as the links below demonstrate, if we adopt the "majority of translators," they render the verse as simply that men should not wear a woman's clothing and a woman should not wear a man's clothing (while omitting the noun "pertains"):

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-5.htm

*Thus, using their interpretive decision in this passage, nothing would prohibit a believing man from donning a dress that was made for men (they do make them in this age of perversion).

*But, here is how the Hebrew text itself actually reads:

http://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/22-5.htm

*That is the identical point I am making w. I Cor. 11.6. We have to stick w. what the originally-inspired text itself says. This is why I rarely purchase anything other than grammars and exegetical works.

*Back soon.

Right, so yes, I have seen all of this. Thanks.

However, that was not my question. I will ask it again.

Taking your last link, why does this definition for "WEAR" show up in ONLY Deut 22:5 and no where else in the OT?

Is says: הָיָה verb fall out, come to pass, become, be

http://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/22-5.htm

It isn't defined as "lâbêsh" like in Isaiah 41:1 "...We will eat our own bread, and wear/"lâbêsh" our own apparel:.."

Or in Esther 6:8 - "Let the royal apparel be brought which the king useth to wear/"lâbêsh",..."

http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/4-1.htm

In Deut 22:11; Isaiah 41:1; Esther 6:8 and Zechariah 13:14; "wear" is defined - לָבֵשׁ לָבַשׁ lâbêsh; verb put on (a garment), wear, clothe, be clothed

However, ONLY in Deut 22:5, speaking of the verb as being the abomination is "היה hâyâh" used.

It doesn't appear to simply mean to be clothed.

Can you explain that?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Right, so yes, I have seen all of this. Thanks.

However, that was not my question. I will ask it again.

Taking your last link, why does this definition for "WEAR" show up in ONLY Deut 22:5 and no where else in the OT?

Is says: הָיָה verb fall out, come to pass, become, be

http://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/22-5.htm

It isn't defined as "lâbêsh" like in Isaiah 41:1 "...We will eat our own bread, and wear/"lâbêsh" our own apparel:.."

Or in Esther 6:8 - "Let the royal apparel be brought which the king useth to wear/"lâbêsh",..."

http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/4-1.htm

In Deut 22:11; Isaiah 41:1; Esther 6:8 and Zechariah 13:14; "wear" is defined - לָבֵשׁ לָבַשׁ lâbêsh; verb put on (a garment), wear, clothe, be clothed

However, ONLY in Deut 22:5, speaking of the verb as being the abomination is "היה hâyâh" used.

It doesn't appear to simply mean to be clothed.

Can you explain that?

Hayah is a primitive word having the meaning of "to be or to exist", if I am not mistaken. Sort of like the Spanish "ser"? So is it saying a "woman shall not be that which pertains to a man"? Seems all the translators understand it to refer to wearing something, though...?

[Esaias]

I can't help but think all sides of this argument are missing something...

I also can't help but think this is one of those topics that will never find solutions on an internet forum.