Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYtgsLnEl38

[Adam]

God bless Chuck Jones. They don't make 'em like that anymore.

[Praxeas]

That's true

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

You don't know the difference between pants and mens pants?

Sorry, they are still pants, even if they have a flower on them.

I have other reasons for not wearing pants with flowers on them. The fact that they are a breached garment is not one of them.

Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Did you not read MBlumes thread? It's about women wearing men's armour. The word man is derived from the hebrew "male warrior". Is that the only scripture you have narrow?

[BrotherEastman]

this reminds me of the argument I had with my step-dad. lol

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Nobody said righteousness was done away. But the Law never made anyone righteous, You can't just pick and choose what parts of the Law of Moses you can disobey

?? who said anything about made one righteous? Define "made one." That can be seen many different ways. I can apply principle teaching of scripture as instruction in righteousness.

Show us where in the NT this part about clothing was referenced then

Why are you limiting teaching/doctrine/truth on what is sin and righteousness to the NT? Then don't ever teach ever from the OT or even reference anything. Scripture and understanding of God was always referenced in the churches which was OT writings for understanding of God.

Show me one person that denies there should be a distinction in clothing here. You are arguing a strawman.

I am discussing the meaning of what Deut 22:5 is about. You just put words in what I am discussing to what you want to say I am discussing.

The argument here is not distinction but whether or not women can wear pants

seiously catch up on what I am talking about.

Then simply show where this is fulfilled in the NT. Make your arguments from the NT

uh why again are we limiting everything to the NT? You say everyone believes in distinction yet you argue to prove it? Rather back and forth are you not?

Again nobody denies there should be a distinction.The disagreement is with someone's idea that women can't wear pants

I am talking about Deut 22:5 and interpretation of geber etc... Quit making my comments about what you want them about.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

?? who said anything about made one righteous? Define "made one." That can be seen many different ways. I can apply principle teaching of scripture as instruction in righteousness.

You seemed to

Why are you limiting teaching/doctrine/truth on what is sin and righteousness to the NT?

Because I'm a Christian saved by the blood of Christ and not by the works of the law

Then don't ever teach ever from the OT or even reference anything.

I don't unless it is repeated in the NT as I said before.

Scripture and understanding of God was always referenced in the churches which was OT writings for understanding of God.

You are confusing being righteous or commandments by God and "understanding of God" or who God is.

I am discussing the meaning of what Deut 22:5 is about.

Right and you used the word distinctions in clothing and I repeat, show me someone here that denies there should be a distinction in clothing.

Nobody denies a distinction in clothing

seiously catch up on what I am talking about.

I quoted you

Then simply show where this is fulfilled in the NT. Make your arguments from the NT

I am talking about Deut 22:5 and interpretation of geber etc... Quit making my comments about what you want them about.

I quoted you. If you want to reword what you posted be my guest.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You seemed to

Because I'm a Christian saved by the blood of Christ and not by the works of the law

Yes.. but what does that have anything to do with what I have said? The whole law is fulfilled by love does that mean the teachings of God are to be ignored? NO!

I don't unless it is repeated in the NT as I said before.

That is your perogative. teaching principles of divine order is always true.

So you say nobody disagrees with Crossdressing and you don't teach it unless it is in the NT. So teach on crossdressing Prax from the NT with didactic scripture.

You are confusing being righteous or commandments by God and "understanding of God" or who God is.

no I am not confusing anything. The bible is God expressed and it teaches no matter the covenant.

Right and you used the word distinctions in clothing and I repeat, show me someone here that denies there should be a distinction in clothing.

again... I am discussing Blumes interpretation on what Deut 22:5 is in reference to that it is not limited to warrior gear etc...

Nobody denies a distinction in clothing

really... so show me in the NT distinction taught in clothing since you aer stuck on somehow because a page divide says NT it somewho negates natural law truths.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Did you not read MBlumes thread? It's about women wearing men's armour. The word man is derived from the hebrew "male warrior". Is that the only scripture you have narrow?

lol and read the text and apply it's meaning. It is not limited to just warrior and armour. geber is not strict at all in it's usage.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Yes.. but what does that have anything to do with what I have said? The whole law is fulfilled by love does that mean the teachings of God are to be ignored? NO!

It has to do with the question you asked me. Clearly I was answering it. It means we have a NEW covenant now with God. It means we are not justified by the Law of Moses. Read the NT

So you say nobody disagrees with Crossdressing and you don't teach it unless it is in the NT.

I did not say nobody disagrees with cross dressing. I said nobody denies there should be a distinction in clothing

So teach on crossdressing Prax from the NT with didactic scripture.

The NT is clear that men and women are distinct. To dress like a man, being a woman, is to attempt to blur that distinction.
Rom 1, 1Cor 11, 1Peter 3:1-6, 1tim 2;9-10

There is enough information in the NT, corraborating what was also written in the OT, to know men and women are distinct and should remain distinct and not disobey the order of God by denying that distinction