Many people today have the idea that Jesus Christ while he was on this earth had long hair and wore clothing that looked like a dress. The reason for this is that many people derive what they believe from artwork or the opinions of so-called “theologians” and “scholars” instead of getting their information directly from the Bible itself.Pastor Anderson continues:
...it is a shame and dishonor to Christ for a man to have long hair. There is no place in the Bible that even insinuates that Jesus had long hair. Sodomite homosexuals such as Michelangelo painted Jesus to look effeminate and to have long hair in order to make him fit their own queer image.
These same type of paintings have also given people the idea that “Jesus did not wear pants.” Some have even made utterly ridiculous and bizarre statements such as, “pants had not been invented yet,” or “they didn’t have pants back then.” According to these “scholars,” the men of the past who built the pyramids and Stonehenge just hadn’t thought of pants yet!I'd rather think our Spartan forefathers wore a warrior's kilt. There's nothing wrong with that, and dammit, I don't give a damn what Sgt Cletus says, there's nothing wrong with a general wearing a little flowered mini-kilt around his compound either. It provides the ol' grenades with a little ventilation on a hot day. Cletus is a damned liar, anyway. Don't believe a word he says. And damn it, it was Crisco and a watermelon, no goddamn cantaloupes were involved. Never watch "Red Dawn" and "24" back to back. And I was drunk, anyway, dammit!
What I believe is based upon the Bible, not “historical evidence,” but the historical record also proves that men in the ancient Middle East wore pants. For example, at the famous battle of Thermopylae (480BC), every historian reports that the Persian (Iranian) soldiers were wearing pants down to their ankles, while the homosexual, perverted Spartans were wearing short skirts or even less!
Uhhhh, OK, uhhhh, anyway, I think Pastor Anderson goes out on a limb a little bit here:
Obviously John was not referring to a tattoo he was seeing on Jesus’ naked thigh since Jesus was clothed from head to foot according to Revelation 1:13. He had his name written upon the clothing on his thigh, just as he had his name written upon his coat. When wearing a dress or a “tunic” the thigh is not delineated. Clothing that is worn on each “thigh” is referred to as a pair of pants. Therefore it is apparent that Jesus was wearing pants as he rode in on a white horse to defeat the Antichrist. Apparently “scholars” would have us believe that Jesus was riding to battle on a horse in a dress.Although I agree that Jesus couldn't have worn a long dress or a gown in John's revelation--he'd have to have ridden sidesaddle, and you can't fight the Antichrist while looking like Dale Evans--our Savior could have been wearing a warriorly mini-kilt. That'd expose His immaculate thigh.
And maybe His name wasn't actually tattooed there. Once, when Cletus was passed out, we took a sharpie and wrote "very, very, tiny Cletus" on his thigh and then drew an arrow pointing up to his little soldier. Maybe, the apostles did the same to Jesus after one of those big water to wine parties. Who knows, they might have even been watching a live version of something like "Red Dawn" or "24."