He was always in that robe that looked like a dress......
2006-07-24 04:25:30 · 17 answers · asked by lost&confused 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
One has to exist in order to crossdress. So, no.
2006-07-24 04:28:13 · answer #1 · answered by Some Dude 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, the "robes that looked like dresses" were called tunics. These were long shirts made to be able withstand hard labor in the heat of summer while providing adequate protection. They were usually made of a moderately thick material like animal skins or a burlap-like material. Women dresses were made more from the cottons and silks available during that day to be more breathable and cool, since the majority of their work was done indoors, they didn't have to worry about the sun as much, but still had to worry about heat from cooking fires and such, yet needed to stay cool. The design and length of these robes and tunics and such was what helped the sexes distinguish themselves and why God commanded Moses to write in the book of Deuteronomy in Chapter 5:22, "Let not a man wear that which pertaineth to a woman, nor a woman that which pertaineth to a man." Therefore, since there was a method in which to establish men's clothing from women's in type, style, and materials used, one can be rest assured that not only did Jesus NOT cross-dress, it was outlawed in the Bible almost 2,000 years before He was born!
2006-07-24 11:35:18 · answer #2 · answered by bigvol662004 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you not know the difference between a robe and a dress?
2006-07-24 11:27:34 · answer #3 · answered by Jim Darwin's Peace 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No He wore a Skirt like the rest of the Men, the Cross dressers came later Men started wearing woman's Pants,
2006-07-24 11:30:09 · answer #4 · answered by kritikos43 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus is not a Crossdresser
2006-07-24 11:27:19 · answer #5 · answered by fiyinoye 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am thinking...Yes- I mean it is hard to get past a man in a robe!
2006-07-24 11:29:25 · answer #6 · answered by go_to_girl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
But, what did he wear under the robe?
2006-07-24 11:36:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but most of the artwork I've seen hanging on the walls of churches reminds me of homo erotica. It's never anatomically correct and they have Him wearing a diaper of all things. As far as I know, Michelangelo is the only artist to have created a nude Cruxifixion.
2006-07-24 11:32:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, that's what they wore back then - those robes are cooler than pants & it was a little hot outside...
2006-07-24 11:33:24 · answer #9 · answered by kc_brig 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if he dressed while on the cross....
...get it...I'm killin' me over here!
2006-07-24 11:27:06 · answer #10 · answered by rightonrighton 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋