Joe Brandts 1937 dream about the sinking of Los Angeles


The visions of Joe Brandt in 1937
Reprinted from: Living Water, Vol 1X, Number 2, April-May-June Issue 1969.

The man who wrote this was a personal friend of the publisher at the time. The article is given as he wrote it in 1937, in boyish handwriting. He had fallen from a horse at age 17 and for days he had a concussion. During this period of time a continuing dream came night after night. It was as though he were viewing a tremendous earthquake and inundation in California and other parts of the world. Joe Brandt had also written in a drowsy state through his days while recuperating in the hospital about positions of various faults, strata of rock, earth movements,-so much material that a geologist of many years would scarcely attempt such a work. The boy knew nothing of geology or the possibility of a coming earthquake. There are five-points to note which lift this dream/vision out of the realm of ordinary night-time dreaming, and the huge sheaf of geology data out of ordinary day-time writings, as follows:

1. The dream/vision took place in perfect continuity, night after night, for many nights, always picking up exactly where it left off. This is super-normal.

2. The viewer was projected at least 30 years ahead in time, seeing modes of dress for youth not faintly imagined in 1937 by anyone. This is super- normal.

3. Half-sized cars were seen-many of them, and in 1937 such cars were not familiar to the United States. He remarked about the odd shape, which could have been the Volkswagen, now so common in the United States. There are about three times as many VW's in California as elsewhere in our country.
4. Super-highways are noted, which he had not seen in his trips to Los Angeles from his home in Fresno, California. (By the way, he saw Fresno wiped out in the catastrophe.) This is super-normal knowledge.

5. He wrote about geology he had never learned, nor at 17 had there been time to learn that much. He was given a vast knowledge of "faults" of which he was totally unaware. This is super-normal knowledge. When checked later with a graduate geologist, it was found to be factual. Note: absence of birds. Birds and animals flee an area just before earthquakes.

Those who do not believe in dreams or visions had better re-check Holy Writ, replete with hundreds of accounts of God's dealings with men through this means. The area of dreams and visions is a subtle one, and must be tested and re-tested before accepted. Dates can be deceptive, but should be weighted as a possibility. Here now is Joe Brandt's dream/vision, which confirms what we have had from spiritual Christians by the hundreds. It is up to you to decide what you will do with it.-and may we add, ABOUT it. Having to die in a holocaust is not the great tragedy. The tragedy of all the ages- of an entire lifetime- is to die without Christ.


1937 VISION OF THE COMING EARTHQUAKE
by Joe Brandt

The Day Of The Earthquake

I woke up in the hospital room with a terrific headache- as if the whole world was revolving inside my brain. I remember, vaguely, the fall from my horse-Blackie. As I lay there, pictures began to form in my mind-pictures that moved with the speed of lightning-pictures that revolved-pictures that stood still. I seemed to be in another world. Whether it was the future, or whether it was some ancient land, I could not say.

At first, I couldn't figure it out, I didn't know what it was-then I did. THERE WERE NO BIRDS. I listened. I walked two blocks north or the Blvd...All houses...no birds. I wondered what had happened to them. Had they gone away? Where? Again, I could hear the stillness. I had never experienced anything like it. I listened...just the stillness.

Then, I knew something was going to happen. I wondered what year it was. It certainly was not 1937. I saw a newspaper on the corner with a picture of the president. It surely wasn't Mr. Roosevelt. He was bigger, heavier, big ears. If it wasn't 1937, I wondered what year it was. It looked like 1969...but I wasn't sure. My eyes weren't working just right..

Someone was coming...someone in 1937... it was that fat nurse ready to take my temperature. I woke up. Crazy dream (There are pages here about a similar dream occurring-finding himself in Los Angeles-although it was the next day (in 1937) it was the same day in Los Angeles, and the dream would continue where the last dream left off.) My headache is worse. It is a wonder I didn't get killed on that horse. I've had another crazy dream, back in Hollywood. Those people. Why do they dress like that I wonder? I found myself back on the Blvd. I was waiting for something to happen. Something BIG was going to happen and I was going to be there. I looked up at the clock down by that big theatre. It was 10 minutes to 4. Something BIG was going to happen. I walked down the street. In the concrete in front of a theatre they had names of stars. I recognized a few of them. The other names I had never heard. I was getting bored. I wanted to get back to the hospital in Fresno, and I wanted to stay there on the blvd., even if nobody could see me. Those crazy kids. Why are they dressed like that? Maybe it is some big Halloween doings, but it don't seem like Halloween. More like early spring.

There was that sound again. that LACK OF SOUND. STILLNESS, STILLNESS, STILLNESS. Don't these people KNOW that the birds have gone somewhere? The QUITE IS GETTING BIGGER AND BIGGER. I KNOW IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. SOMETHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Something is happening now!

It sure did. She woke me up, grinning and smiling, that fat nurse again. "It's time for your milk, kiddo," she says. Gosh, old woman of 30 acting like the cat's pyjamas. Next time maybe she'll bring hot chocolate.

THE MOMENT OF THE HAPPENING

Where have I been. Where haven't I been! I've been to the ends of the earth and back. I've been to the end of the world. There isn't anything left. Not even Fresno, even though I'm lying here right this minute. If only my eyes would get a little clearer so I can write all this down. Nobody will believe me, anyway.

I'm going back to that last moment on the Blvd. Some sweet kid went past, dragging a little boy (twins, I guess) by each hand. Her skirt was up--well, pretty high--and she had a tired look. I thought for a minute I could ask her about the birds, what had happened to them, and then, I remembered she didn't see me. Her hair was all frowzy, way out all over her head. A lot of them looked like that, but she looked so tired and like she was sorry about something. I guess she was sorry BEFORE it happened, because it surely did happen.

There was a funny smell. I don't like it. A smell like sulphur, sulphuric acid, a smell like death. For a minute, I thought I was back in chem. (chemistry). When I looked around for the girl, she was gone. I wanted to find her for some reason. It was if I knew something was going to happen and I could stay with her, help her. She was gone, and I walked half a block, then saw the clock again. My eyes seemed glued on that clock. I couldn't move. I just waited. It was FIVE MINUTES TO FOUR O'CLOCK ON A SUNNY AFTERNOON. I thought I would stand there looking at that clock forever waiting for the something to come.

Then, when it came, it was nothing. It was just nothing. It wasn't nearly as hard as the earthquake we had two years ago. The ground shook, just an instant. People looked at each other, surprised. Then they laughed, I laughed too. So this was what I had been waiting for. This funny little shake. It meant nothing. I was relieved and I was disappointed. What had I been waiting for? I started back up the Blvd., moving my legs like those kids. How do they do it?

I never found out. I felt as if the ground wasn't solid under me. I knew I was dreaming and yet I wasn't dreaming. There was that smell again--coming like from the ocean. I was getting to the 5 and 10 (Newberry's?) and I saw the look on the kids' faces. Two of them were right in front of me, coming my way. Both with beards. One with earrings. One said: "let's get out of this place. Let's go back East." He seemed scared. It was as if the sidewalks were trembling - but you couldn't seem to see them. Not with your eyes you couldn't. An old lady had a dog, a little white dog, and she stopped and looked scared, and grabbed him in her arms and said," Let's go home, Frou, Frou. Mamma is going to take you home." That poor old lady, hanging on to her dog. I got scared. Real scared.

I remembered the girl. She was way down the block, probably. I started to run. I ran and ran, and the ground kept trembling. But I couldn't see it. I couldn't feel it. But I knew it was trembling. Everybody looked scared. They looked terrible. One young lady just sit down on the sidewalk all doubled up. She kept saying "earthquake, it's THE earthquake." over and over. But I COULDN"T SEE THAT ANYTHING WAS DIFFERENT.

I have good reason to believe that the approaching blood moon tetrads and it's accompanying solar eclipse are what The Lord Jesus was referring to in Matthew 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. "

And this also corresponds to :And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. -Revelation 6:12-13.

I believe this is the same earthquake that sinks Los Angeles and shakes the whole world causing mountains to disappear and Islands to disappear and appear in various places around the world.

Since we won't have tetrads for another 100 years plus, and this ariel Sharon generation must not expire till all be fulfilled, then this approaching tetrad must be the one spoken of in Matthew and Revelations.

This would mean if correct, that the rapture would have to be this year.

I believe right wing Jews vehemently opposed to peace with the Palestinans will be bribed by giving them access to Temple Mount to rebuild their temple. I think also the temple parts have been prefabricated already, ready for rapid assembly.so Jewish Temple worship could start this year.

The last surviving Israeli leader from the generation of its founders, Ariel Sharon wanted peace to be his eternal legacy

Culled from: http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon’s-failure-to-continue-the-struggle/

Jesus said " this generation shall not pass till all be fulfilled". I think rapture will happen sooner than many think.

Well doctrinally, all the ministers this Sister Linda gave warnings to actually have a case to answer, so as long as their doctrinal errors are significant enough to make them be at risk of hell, to that extent then her testimony must be true. And the doctrinal errors are sufficient for they and those they are leading to mis the rapture.

(Waiting for the cudgels to come after me )

haibe:

None of those laws apply, I repeat none, whether moral or whatever.

The holy Spirit is what leads us as Christians, yes I do not kill, this is not because it is written in the law, it is because the holy Spirit wouldn't let me.


Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit,
you are NOT UNDER THE LAW

For sin will have no dominion over you, since
you are NOT UNDER THE LAW but under grace.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to
bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified
by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are NO LONGER under a schoolmaster

For Christ is the END OF THE LAW for
righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 10:4).


Lady do not mix the law age with grace, the law is the law, if you want to obey all, do but don't cherry pick.


For whosoever shall have kept the whole law,
and then offends in one point is made guilty
of all (James 2:10)



8 For finding fault with them, he saith,
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I
will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made
with their fathers in the day when I took them
by the hand to lead them out of the land of
Egypt; because they continued not in my
covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the
Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with
the house of Israel after those days, saith the
Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and
write them in their hearts: and I will be to
them a God, and they shall be to me a people

Here you make a fatal mistake in understanding. We are freed from the old law, and delivered into a new law. " the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus." We are now led by the Spirit, correct. However, the Spirit points us back to the Word of God. Jesus put it this way "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: -John 15:26
Remember that Jesus Christ is the Word of God.
The holy Spirit will testify of the Word of God. He will not contradict the Word of God. So the true evidence that you have the Spirit is that your life will line up with the Word of God. The Word of God is from Genesis to Revelation. old and New testaments.

All that has happened is that God has taken those old moral laws and written them in the heart, rather than in tables of stone. "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another -Romans 2:15"

redsun:

What makes somebody a Christian? Being Christ like and being Christ like is about loving your neighbor as yourself which you are not doing right now by thinking i shouldn't be here.

Don't restrict your mind,leave it open for liberation to set in. Life is too short.

You can not be Christlike if you do not believe Christ. Jesus Christ said " if you do not believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins" so if you do not believe Jesus was God in human flesh, the messiah, whatever " loving your neighbour" you are doing does not count.

haibe:

Its the culture of the indian woman to wear a trouser under her saree, is she bound for hell too?

What of the Scottish man with his skirts?

And the niger delta man(ijaw to be precise) with his wrappers?

You are neither Indian nor Scottish, so you should not be worrying about that. However, the Scottish man's kilt (skirt) is not regarded by the Scottish as a skirt. If you ever want a bloodied nose, go and tell a Scottish man that he is wearing a skirt. Same goes for the Niger delta man and his wrappers. The women tie theirs differently from the men. There is the distinction that God wants maintained. I do not know much about the Indian women, so I can not comment on that for now.

miss.terious:
Wait, wearing shirts as a lady is a sin? Wow. Seriously, some people are under bondage. Is powder also a sin?

If you note, I said it should not be done. I did not equate it to a sin. There are things you avoid because it's better to be safe than sorry. If you wear a shirt that solves the problem of the peekaboo through the button flaps, then all well and good. But if you wear shirts like the ones I have seen some women wear, where their bossoms and belly are in full glare through the button flaps, you might be guilty of adultery and would have a case to answer if someone lusts because of your carelessness.

As for powder, it depends on what you do with it. If it is make up powder, pancake etc, you are on your own. If it is regular powder, there is nothing wrong with that.

haibe:

Wait, man made trousers and shirts.

Man dedicated trousers and shirts to men

Man later made a variant of trousers and shirts and dedicated it to a woman.


Please what does God have to do with this??

As a parallel for understanding, consider the following

Man made brassieres for women. Some effeminate men wear brassieres. You think God wil be happy with that?

redsun:

Sister na wa for you o! All these kind tales by moonlight is very real to you.

Man is the creator of his world and his god. We are just part of the universal force that interrelates with one another and the best we can do is make the best of it while we are still conscious.

Ah, now you identify yourself. Why bother with this thread..you are not a Christian, so why are you here?

haibe:

lady we are talking about Deuteronomy 22:5 and Deuteronomy 22:11 now.

If Deuteronomy 22:11 is not a moral law what is it?

All laws given to the israelites are jewish laws, they were never given to the Gentiles.

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do
instinctively the things of the Law, these, not
having the Law, are a law to themselves (Romans 2:14)

You seem to be an hypocrite here, you don't want to obey Deuteronomy 22:11?? has God standard changed? how is Deuteronomy 22:11 so different feom Deuteronomy 22:5.

Lady be sincered with yourself

They were given to the Jews, true, but the moral laws in them were the standard by which the rest of the world at that time were assessed and judged. That's why Jonah went to Nineveh, that's why Jeremiah was a prophet to the nations. That's why you hear of the burden of Assyria and so forth.

So thou shall not kill no longer applies today right?
Honour thy father and thy mother no longer applies today?
Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour no longer applies today ?

You need to wake up my friend, you are fast asleep if this is what you believe.

haibe:

So God made the emporio armani wear?

I was not addressing you, why do you ask this? I thought you believe the bible?

haibe:

So are you trying to tell me the trousers of a male is the same with that of a female?

you think a man can wear a woman's trousers? or a woman's shirts?

Ther was no such idea of " women's trousers and shorts" until the commandment of God was first broken. It was afterwards, these contraptions came about. If its foundation was wrong to begin with, then it is wrong still, however you choose to design them.

redsun:

You sound bright,yet irrational.

Are actually believing all these stories you ate talking about? What makes you think god made clothes for man when people like armani are living proofs of how far man come in designing his own apparels?

You make me laugh. I can see you are not conversant with the scriptures and probably do not believe the bible.The first clothes that were ever made was made by God. Until God revealed what clothes should look like, man had no clue, Adam flailed through his efforts at making a covering, only managing to make fig leave clothes that would dry up and be useless in a day or two. If you do not believe the bible, let us know so I can know how to talk to you.

haibe:

Once again, all the laws in the OT were given to the jews, not gentiles, not christians. They are all jewish laws.

do you agree with the bible saying you break one of this laws and you are guilty of all?

This is not an honest account. The Ot laws were given to the Jews yes, but in those books were contained , laws that governed human relationship one with another, wether Jew or gentile. Those relationship laws still apply. It is still a sin to marry a woman as well as her daughter for instance, even though this is not explicitly written in the new testament, it is written in the old testament. You ignore the old testament at your peril.

redsun:

I bet you a deeper lifer? Why not just free up yourself and live youri short life on living the way you want. Instead of believing in ilusion that will never be and you will never get to find out when you are dead.

Be your own god,your own moral judge and have a taste of rationality and freedom.

Let me surprise you, I am not a deeper lifer. I am deeper than deeper life. .

haibe:

We are talking about how trousers came about right?

If you want us to be culture selective, then it is a also a sin in some part of the worlds for a lady not to cover her hair everywhere she goes.

Wherever culture clashes with the provision of the scriptures, culture is to be ditched in exchange for the scriptures. A woman s hair is her covering, but let's not derail the thread.

haibe:

So God said, the cloth of a man is trouser and that of a woman is skirt?

Was there any distinction between the fig leaves God sew for adam and eve?

Come on , don't be childish. God has a character. You can predict what He did in the past by looking at His character now, which mind you does not change. He made them male and female , made them look different and demanded they dress different. So I expect the coats He made for them were different. trousers , skirts etc were not mentioned here, however, in the context of their culture at the time, the coats must have been different in keeping consistency with the character of God.

God made coats of skin, not fig leaves. It was Adam and Eve that made clothes with fig leaves.

haibe:

Like I have said, dressing usually depends on culture, here is the history of trousers.

rousers first enter recorded history in the
6th century BCE, with the appearance of
horse-riding Iranian peoples in Greek
ethnography . At this time, not only the
Persians , but also allied Eastern and Central
Asian peoples such as the Bactrians,
Armenians , Tigraxauda Scythians and
Xiongnu Hunnu, are known to have worn
them. [5][6] Trousers are believed to have
been worn by both sexes among these early
users. [7]
The ancient Greeks used the term
"ἀναξυρίδες" (anaxyrides ) for the trousers
worn by Eastern nations [8] and
"σαράβαρα" ( sarabara ) for the loose trousers
worn by the Scythians. [9] However, they did
not wear trousers since they thought them
ridiculous, [10][11] using the word
"θύλακοι" ( thulakoi), pl. of
"θύλακος" ( thulakos ), "sack", as a slang
term for the loose trousers of Persians and
other orientals. [12]

EXTRACTED FROM WIKIPEDIA: HISTORY OF TROUSERS

In the context of culture, the trousers we are talking about now are the English trousers, inherited from our English heritage. That culture stipulated almost a 100 years ago, that trousers were male garments. As recently as the 1980s in Nigeria, a woman wearing a trouser was regarded as a woman of easy virtue I.e a prostitute. Just because almost everybody is becoming insane does not mean that the few who are still sane should become insane because everybody is insane after all..

haibe:

For the purpose of this converse, I will agree they are going to hell, what of you that do not obey other laws but stick to Deuteronomy 22:5 only?

You keep talking about other " laws" and I keep telling you the moral laws in the old testament still apply while the Jewish laws no longer apply in Christ. I would have expected you to rather ask me how to identify the moral laws versus the Jewish laws in the old testament.

haibe:

Satan's prepared knickers for women? who prepared shirts and skirts for women including the seductive ones? God?

In case you are not aware, God gave man his first clothing. They were coats of skin. So He has the right to tell us how to dress.

haibe:

So those ladies on shirts with front buttons will equally go to hell?

God will decide who goes to hell.

haibe:

In other words those christians ladies in russia who wear trousers due to extreme cold are all doomed for hell?

have you ever lived overseas?

Yes I have, so I know what I am talking about. Remember we are talking about true Christianity here, not just what people do.

haibe:

Do you obey Deuteronomy 22:11? Isn't it a moral law too?

do you approve of planting different seeds in a farm?

From this statement, I can see that you are not being sincere. I have explained this over and over and you choose to ignore the explanation while demanding again for the explanation. Deut 22:11 is not a moral law but a Jewish law.

haibe: Its the 16th page now, here is what I have noticed about the anti-female trousers guys

1). None of them have been able to explain how Deuteronomy 22:5 referred to trousers.

Deut 22:5 refers to cross dressing male to female and female to male. The scripture did not mention trousers by name, however, as at 1920ish, EVERYBODY under English culture Could identify English trousers of whatever design as a male garment. The same with dresses and skirts. At that time a gale of women wearing trousers began, encouraged by the two world wars and lack of garments. Note however that godly women found a way around the problem without resorting to wearing trousers. IT WAS HERE THE ERROR COULD HAVE BEEN CLIPPED BUT WAS NOT BECAUSE IT HAD TO HAPPEN TO FULFILL THE SCRIPTURES ABOUT THE END TIMES. IF IT WAS WRONG THEN, AND THAT ERROR HAS PROPAGATED FOR almost 100 years , doesn't change the fact that it is still wrong now because God does not change, He never becomes "modern". He is the Ancient of Days, the same yesterday, today and forever.

2). None have been able to prove that trousers are made "strictly" for men

Refer to my answer in 1) above. Plus the following. Lexicon encyclopaedia Volume 3 gives a pictorial evolution of male and female dressing over the ages. It states there that trousers were originally tights, worn by Italian and Spanish military men. They were designed for agility in war. Over years it loosened up into what we call trousers today, while female ball dresses which went down to the feet evolved into dresses and skirts today.

3). None have been able to explain why as a man they can't wear female's trousers and vice versa

If I want to deceive you, I have to do something to make you think I am telling the truth. Satan's preparation of knicker -buggas for women and curving the trousers to highlight female curves is designed to fool you. To find out the truth, always go back to the beginning. That's the reason the book of Genesis was written.

4). None have been able to justify females wearing shirts which was initially for men too

It should not be done. Just because everyone is doing it does not make it right. Shirts with buttons in front, if you have never noticed, allows bossoms and bras to be visible from an angle through the shirt flap. Any woman conscious of God's Word that a man that looks at her lust fully is guilty of adultery, does not want to do anything that will encourage that because she knows that it takes TWO people to commit adultery...in order words if she encouraged it by her dressing, she is guilty too.

5). None have claimed to obey all other laws in Deuteronomy 22 even though breaking one is as good as breaking all.

I have told you before, Deut 22:1-5 are moral laws that still apply today. Not everything written within the 5 books of Moses can be termed as "the law". Stealing is still a sin today, it was in the 10 commandments, the very epitome of the mosaic law.

6). None have been able to explain why Deuteronomy 22:5 applies to us and not other 612 laws..I think the only person who did a bit of justice here is "SisterMe", only that her words couldn't justify what the scriptures requires as regards obeying the law

Refer to my answer in 6) above.

7). Some who hold to this believe give an exception like weather, etc.

Weather is no excuse. Even in the temperate regions, those who believe this do not wear trousers, even when the temperature is below zero. They pad up with long socks , thick hoses or leggings or tights underneath their dresses or skirts.

. All other persons have no point, they keep ranting false preachers, end time preachers, satan messengers, you will.end up in hell, etc without defending their claim that these ladies will actually go to hell.

Well a disobedient daughter is a candidate of hell. I will worry, knowing what I know, if I were in their shoes. I can not tell you they are going to hell. Only God knows who will end up in hell, however, all things being equal, they are in prime position to land in hell.

From the above observations, it is safe for me to conclude that:

1). These christians are not really sure of what they believe.

Not true , at least for me. I know precisely what I believe and the truth of it.

2) These christians are legalists and not the Christians they think they are.

Just because we know that God will judge the world by His Word and are trying to make sure we line up with His Word so we can pass Hs judgement doesn't make m a legalistic. I am only being careful and wise not to take God for granted. He will not respect me, nor your or anyone. He will only respect His Word. If His Word is truly made manifest in my life, then He will respect His Word in me.

3) These christians are quick to judge.

I do not judge anyone, I only judge sin wherever I see it.

4) These christians do not do a proper research on dressing, how it came about and how it applies, how dressing depends on a culture.

I am sure this does not apply to me. I know the relationship between dressing and culture and God, having studied this matter in detail years ago.

5). This christians are so much into man made doctrines.

You do not want to go into this...we will derail the thread. Preaching against cross dressing is no a man made doctrine.

Just my observations which brings about some conclusions.

Check ou my comments too.

vickyO:

Abi...........

They do not have any thing to say jare.
Even the Deut. 22:5 they quote they lack knowledge explaining it.
The scripture doesn't relate to the topic still they hang on it.
I wonder where they saw trouser in that verse.

When you call them the name they deserve, they become defensive.
Bunch of hypocrites.

It won't be long now. You will find out. The coming of Christ will be in your lifetime ceteris paribus. It's quite sad that if you find out too late , it will be too bad. I wish you the best.

haibe:

Speak for yourself, IT HAS A WAY OF ATTRACTING YOU and that is because you are still in bondage to lust.

A born again christian wouldn't lust after a lady, not to talk of a lady putting on a decent trousers.

I am sure you were joking.

vickyO:
Hello sister....
Did you read this?
Sonickay: lolz Nigeria and its interpretation of the scripture. All who supports ladies wearing modest and decent trousers are right and more enlightened.
However, the essence of that verse is to prevent transgender and transsexual dressing. That is to prevent men from wearing things designated for women or to make them look like a woman to a man. Also, on the other hand it is to prevent women or ladies from wearing clothes designated only for men where waring them will be deceitful and present them as a man.
A simple hypothesis of this verse during the medieval period is this: men and women wear garments and robes; men's robes are plain without adornments. On the other hand women's garments are stylish, colourful and more adorned. It was easier to differentiate based on adornments of garments then. So it creates confusion and deceit when a lady wear a man's robe and a man wears a lady's adorned garment. Such was the essence of the verse to stop the anomaly.
In our modern times, a tomboy will never qualify for a guy to a reasonable man, she may have a guy's stature or looks, yet her clothing will give her away easily as a lady because she wasn't dressed in a guy's body hug or overall shirts or a trouser designed for men by Versace, D&G, Bosch et al. The designer factor says it all.
Likewise it is prohibitive for a man to wear a ladies trouser, pants, shirts no matter what fundamental and exclusive right he has to wear trousers and the likes, wearing a designated wear for ladies vilates Deut, 22:5 no matter the levels of similarity and vice-versa.

You are coming back to my point-that deut 22:5 is valid and concerns us today. Now no matter the play on semantics of purpose or intent, the crime is committed when you cross dress wether you intended to deceive or not. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse..you can ask lastma .

Now the worlds standards for acceptable male and female dressing is always changing. Where do we draw the line? Versace and Hugo boss etc constantly introduce unimaginably immoral styles and pass them of as male and female garments. Should that be the standard of the Christian? If it was a sin in 1920 when the yuppie revolution of women's liberation movements started simultaneously with wearing men's clothes, doing men's jobs, rebelling against God's scriptural order that the man be head of the woman in the home, it remains a sin today because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever Heb 13:8. The moral decadence that followed this development in the 1920s easily tells wether this idea was from heaven or from hell.

haibe:

King James Bible
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers
sorts, as of woollen and linen together. ( Deuteronomy 22:11)

5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a
man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your
God detests anyone who does this


Please how does the first amount to a jewish law which isn't applicable to us? even though they are both about dressing?

Are you familiar with this verse?


James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole
law, and yet offend in one [ point ] , he is
guilty of all

It's like you did not read my first post well, or did not understand it.. Go back and read it again. I answered your question in that post.

haibe:

Please I appreciate this but have you read Deuteronomy 22:11?

Do you obey it? or its no more required?

That is precisely my point. Verse 11 is a Jewish law that does not apply to us.

So Deut 22 verse 5 is also a moral law which the undefiled human conscience still practises in many places around the world. Not to rehash what has already been said, you can note that it is only in the last 5 plus decades that this moral decadence from the west has become commonplace..which is not strange because the bible said it would be so.

Regarding the talk about Arabian women and Scottish kilts and so on ..think of it this way..there are male garments and female garments in every custom. Therefore, whenever a person dresses customarily, cross-dressing in that custom's context is abominable. However there are common sense limitations..that means there are some customary garments that cross the line God's decency and must not be worn. Now some say there are female and male trousers. Suffice it to say that if the Word of God in Deut 22:5was not trampled on and disregarded in the 1920's and upwards because women bagan doing men's jobs, there would be no grounds for female trousers. So continuing in them is continuing the flagrant disregard of the Word of God that started in the 1920s regarding this issue.

It remains immoral and ungodly for women to do men's jobs that make them have to wear men's clothes. It blurs the sexual distinctions God made for a woman to be feminine and a man masculine. in the light of this it is still an abomination for a woman to be a grave digger or palm wine tapper. It is still immoral and ungodly for people to wear unisex clothings for the same reasons. These are the reasons why lesbianism and homosexuality are very rampant today.

It is still sinful and immoral for christian female youth corpers to wear ajuwaya trousers regardless of the government policy. There is a reason Christians were persecuted in the early church for their stand against certain common practices. If you notice, exceptions are made for strong Muslims who refuse to wear some aspects of the youth corper's uniform as provided..why not do the same or Christians too?

The truth is that cross dressing trouser wearing for women is of the world. "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. -1 John 2:15

If you love the world, the love of the Father, the Holy Ghost is not in you, and that means you are not even born again even if you speak in tongues.