Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate? - Page 35

BrotherEastman · #**341** 08-31-2011, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

For those men who say ALL pants are made for men, I would ask them to buy a pair of women's jeans at JC Penney and wear them.

good point

LUKE2447 · #**342** 08-31-2011, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Well, I guess there were men robes and women robes. If I were to use that logic then I could assume the same thing for men and women pants. so which is it Luke? robes or battle garments? It could only be one or the other wouldn't you think?

uh let's see. WHat does this have to do with pants or me arguing pants or not. We are talking about the text. It is not limited to warrior gear and you really have not even dealt with the subject you pushed. robes or battle garments??

"It could only be one or the other wouldn't you think?" uh shall we begin again.

BrotherEastman · #**343** 08-31-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

uh let's see. WHat does this have to do with pants or me arguing pants or not. We are talking about the text. It is not limited to warrior gear and you really have not even dealt with the subject you pushed. robes or battle garments??

"It could only be one or the other wouldn't you think?" uh shall we begin again.

Now now Luke, lets be nice.

I am talking about the text; maybe you should start over. lol. you said nothing about pants I'll grant you that; however, the text we are discussing always points to women wearing pants and that was MY POINT, and since you butted in on MY statement, pants on women are the issue along with the text.

I answered your post concerning the text and the Hebrew word gebar as well as the 2nd part of the text. Sorry if it isn't as simple to you as I made it out to be.

Sabby · #**344** 08-31-2011, 04:39 PM

Quote:

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!

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.

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

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

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.

Ok, Luke,
Where did you EVER get the idea that the OLD TESTAMENT was the rule of living christian life in the NEW TESTAMENT?

You have forgotten the weightier matters of the law, to have mercy, and NOT sacrifice.

It was the angel of the Lord that told John in The Revelation of Jesus Christ that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Not the testimony of the law. Not the testimony of custom. Not the testimony of sacrificial works....

Those Gentile churches that Paul started in the middle of the book of Acts were a direct result of his being kicked out of local synagogues - the places that couldn't let go of the LAW. He was kicked out of those synagogues because he preached Jesus Christ as the hope of Israel and resurrection and the anointed Messiah, for in him we live and move and have our being. We have our BEING our life and breath, in Jesus Christ. Our lifestyle is totally, completely, irrevocably wrapped up in knowing and Jesus in true godly repentance.

IOW, He is God and we are not....

Don't mistake what I'm saying. I am not saying that a "secondary result" of knowing him will show us the old testament "principle" of holiness for women to not wear men's battle garb. The principle is only found in the New Testament, in Jesus Christ. He is the fulfillment of ALL God as spoken. We are not Lawtians. We are Christians.
We look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, NOT Moses, bless his heart.
All men and women and boys and girls that have obeyed the gospel are cross-bearing soldiers in the army of the Lord. We have all girded up the loins of our minds in service and battle for Him.
God is VERY interested in gender distinction, and gave us His opinion of it in your Deuteronomy reference. It ought to be clear to you by now that we are in a spiritual Kingdom, and unless uninformed are temperate in all things. We put off works of the flesh (which could include immodest clothing) and then PUT ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST since we are in the Kingdom.
My point in all of this, which you seem to be missing is this: It is not against Jesus Christ for women to wear women's pants nor to cut their hair. It is not against Jesus for you to grow facial hair or wear shorts. It is not against Jesus to wear Jewelry. Jesus demands a heart of humility, not a proof of sacrifice...I didn't say it. In fact, Jesus was furious with publicans that created all sorts of requirements from the LAW OF MOSES upon believers but wouldn't lift a finger to lighten their load. Where do YOU stand, Luke?
"Oh, I believe the old testament more than Jesus".....? C'mon, man

Praxeas · #**345** 08-31-2011, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

that was supposed to have been didactic/teaching

We are under a New Covenant. The Jews tried to force Gentiles to keep the Law. We have a New covenant and a New Law. Certain elements of the Old are true of the New. That does not mean we are under the Old covenant or Law

If one wants to know what the New Covenant is about and what is expected of New Covenant believers, they read the New Testament.

The New Testament , like anything else, containes both explicit and implicit knowledge.

Didactic simply means good for teaching. The OT is still good for teaching as examples and leading people to Christ

In the New Covenant distinction is sexes is still emphasized through implied and explicit didactic evidences

Cindy · #**346** 08-31-2011, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabby

Ok, Luke,
Where did you EVER get the idea that the OLD TESTAMENT was the rule of living christian life in the NEW TESTAMENT?

You have forgotten the weightier matters of the law, to have mercy, and NOT sacrifice.

It was the angel of the Lord that told John in The Revelation of Jesus Christ that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Not the testimony of the law. Not the testimony of custom. Not the testimony of sacrificial works....

Those Gentile churches that Paul started in the middle of the book of Acts were a direct result of his being kicked out of local synagogues - the places that couldn't let go of the LAW. He was kicked out of those synagogues because he preached Jesus Christ as the hope of Israel and resurrection and the anointed Messiah, for in him we live and move and have our being. We have our BEING our life and breath, in Jesus Christ. Our lifestyle is totally, completely, irrevocably wrapped up in knowing and Jesus in true godly repentance.

IOW, He is God and we are not....

Don't mistake what I'm saying. I am not saying that a "secondary result" of knowing him will show us the old testament "principle" of holiness for women to not wear men's battle garb. The principle is only found in the New Testament, in Jesus Christ. He is the fulfillment of ALL God as spoken. We are not Lawtians. We are Christians.
We look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, NOT Moses, bless his heart.
All men and women and boys and girls that have obeyed the gospel are cross-bearing soldiers in the army of the Lord. We have all girded up the loins of our minds in service and battle for Him.
God is VERY interested in gender distinction, and gave us His opinion of it in your Deuteronomy reference. It ought to be clear to you by now that we are in a spiritual Kingdom, and unless uninformed are temperate in all things. We put off works of the flesh (which could include immodest clothing) and then PUT ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST since we are in the Kingdom.
My point in all of this, which you seem to be missing is this: It is not against Jesus Christ for women to wear women's pants nor to cut their hair. It is not against Jesus for you to grow facial hair or wear shorts. It is not against Jesus to wear Jewelry. Jesus demands a heart of humility, not a proof of sacrifice...I didn't say it. In fact, Jesus was furious with publicans that created all sorts of requirements from the LAW OF MOSES upon believers but wouldn't lift a finger to lighten their load. Where do YOU stand, Luke?
"Oh, I believe the old testament more than Jesus".....? C'mon, man

Preach!!

Sister Alvear · #**347** 08-31-2011, 10:17 PM

I am not a jewelry wearer...so do not get me wrong...

However I heard someone say something about some little girl that had a dime store ring on...and looked and the person talking to me had a 400 (four hundred) dollar purse on her arm...and the watch looked like it had diamonds in it but I do not know...I only know the price of the purse because someone told me...

Wonder what God has to say about all of us sometimes...May the Lord keep our hearts pure...

Praxeas · #**348** 09-01-2011, 12:18 AM

I don't wear jewelry. I have no need to nor do I believe it will enhance my appearence

houston · #**349** 09-01-2011, 01:36 AM

I have piercings.

Narrow Is The Way · #**350** 09-01-2011, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

For those men who say ALL pants are made for men, I would ask them to buy a pair of women's jeans at JC Penney and wear them.

There is no such thing as a pair of women's britches. If they aren't for a man, then they are not for anybody. Just because I don't want to wear them does not mean that God intended for my wife to wear them. That is a mindless assertion. Most of the clothing that you find in stores today aren't for anybody to wear. They need to be thrown into a fire somewhere.