I am a theoretical physicist and currently Director of 
June 01, 2011
News flash: Jesus wore pants!
One of the image problems that prevents Christianity from attracting men in America is that Jesus, with his long flowing hair that seems out of a shampoo commercial and wearing a robe that could be easily confused with a dress, seems effeminate and this can be off-putting to manly men.
But the undoubtedly manly Jesus' General (who scores an 11 on the manly scale of absolute gender) points out that evangelical pastor Steven L. Anderson has revealed the heretofore hidden truth that Jesus actually had short hair and wore pants and that the mistaken image people have of what Jesus looked like is the result of deliberately misleading depictions of him by homosexual artists like Michelangelo who were covertly seeking to advance their gay agenda. As Anderson says, "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… Anyone who has not had their mind warped by a so-called theologian or historian knows that a dress is a woman’s garment. The only men I have seen wearing dresses in 2010 are homosexuals, Catholic priests (sorry to be redundant), Islamic clerics, and Buddhist monks. These men are an abomination according to the Bible." You can't argue with that logic.
We are lucky that we have people like pastor Anderson to tell the truth and stand up for what it means to be a man. And talking of standing up, Jesus' General highlights another important feature that pastor Anderson has cleverly deduced from the Bible that can tell you if someone is a manly man or not.
Comments
"There is no indication in the New Testament that the clothing of God’s people had changed. Jesus Christ did not dress any different than his disciples who were working men. He had to be kissed by Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane in order to be identified by the soldiers who arrested him. This indicates that he looked similar to those around him."
He goes through all this trouble of trying to convince us that Jesus was a manly man who wore pants and then proceeds to tell us that these guys were into kissing when they would greet each other? Wow.
Wow, I was reading this in my RSS feed, and I just had to click through to be sure... it sounds you were describing an Onion article! lol!
Years ago I learned that pants were adopted only after the introduction of the horse. Horses were scarce in Europe until a harness was invented that allowed them to pull a plow, around 1200 AD. Before then, it took 5 man-years to feed a horse. After the invention of the harness, 1 horse could feed 5 men and horses became much more common. Medieval institutions that have persisted continue the practice of wearing "robes" or dresses - such as the clergy and academics. It's rather surprising that as a pastor Steven L. Anderson does not wear a robe. A lot of graduates donned robes in the last few weeks!
It's hard to get true conclusive facts of the past but if Jesus had short hair and wore pants, it might be likely. Because Jesus had to of looked like an ordinary human being seeing that he was shaed in our image.
I think, Jesus is not a celebrity in his time.He had to wear the same type of clothes that most people in his time is wearing.He has to look like a normal man.
I fail to see the relevance of what Jesus may or may not have worn and what bearing this has on anything? The beliefs displayed by Jesus and the compassion he had for other people are what's important - does he need to look masculine to appeal to men? This seems very narrow minded to me.
Jesus is MAN and he's not effeminate.it's just what those artists have portrayed him.