14 July 2010

Steven L. Anderson: Jesus wore pants and had no tattoos on his thigh (or scrotum)

Remember my post about Jesus' testicles? It was based on this verse from Revelation.

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. Revelation 19:16

From that verse alone, we know for sure that Jesus has "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords" written on his thigh. And since thigh is a biblical euphemism for male genitals, well, you get the idea.

It may not be true (heck, he might not have flaming eyes, blood-drenched clothes, white hair, and a sword sticking out of his mouth either), but it's fun to think about. Isn't it?

But Steven L. Anderson doesn't like the idea. Jesus doesn't have a tattoo on his thigh or his scrotum. It is written on his pants.

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.

And here's his proof:

The universal symbols for a man and for a woman say it all. Have you looked at a bathroom door lately?


The Black Bot said...

"He might not have flaming eyes, blood-drenched clothes, white hair, and a sword sticking out of his mouth either"

Why hasn't anyone made a horror movie out of the book of Revelation yet? I mean really. If they did, it would definitely be the most creepy, thrilling movie ever. it begs to be made

busterggi said...

Next great theological debate - boxers or briefs?

Richard T said...

Those aren't universal symbols. I thought everyone knew that in Scotland the Gents' is indicated by a man in a kilt.

muldoon said...

Somebody probably ought to tell the pope about that pants thing. No doubt he'll want to be properly dressed for the Big Event, and dresses are just so girly.

Matthew Blanchette said...

You've got to wonder what he wears under there, though... ;-)

Jesus wore pants? Didn't most people back then wear tunics? :-P

Anonymous said...

Anderson is a reject, and he is going the way of a dangerous cult figure. It's a writing, but tattoo, who can say? It was on his vesture and on his thigh. People taking one or the other, but it's both!

Clearly, considering the region close to the thigh, the vesture is his underpants. The debate remains, for Anderson to write another bizarre sermon about: did Jesus wear boxers or briefs? LOL.

twillight said...

@The Black Bot

Horror-movie? Nah. A simple Jesus-movie would do it. Like "Jesus Christ Superstar" or "Jesus' last temptation" or such.
Or imagine Mel Gibson's Passion with that kind of Jesus! Go for reaism Mel!

Nathan said...

They had those bathroom symbols 2000 years ago? I didn't even know they had BATHROOMS!

twillight said...

That is actually a toilet-symbol, not a bathroom.

People long ago started to have toilets, and the romans certainly had bathhouses. Not sure about bathrooms though...

SkirtCharlie said...

Pants on men were 95% caused by horseback riding and 5% by people who fled to arctic areas to escape persecution. It took several hundred generations to get most men into pants as the use of the horse spread. It took three and a half years, January 1942 through summer 1945, to get most women starting to wear pants! It was the World War Two factory work. Social forces cause clothing behavior, NOT GENDER! We may except a few distinctive garments from this principle, athletic supporters and bras.