haibe:
I don't still understand how we got to the issue of denomination, lol, am only writing from my knowledge and then you say denomination. Well for ƔυƦ information i am not speaking what av been taught but what ℓ̊ know, about the issue of t.v, i have a t.v at home even though av come to understand it can endanger a christian life, about the education issue, maybe you should go back to the source who told you and stop carrying rumour, probably you are mistaking us with bokoharam and i tell you every church is not perfect, so i don't know why you are criticizing one if yours is not also perfect, i still find some things not necessary in my church even as i find in other churches. Just be sure of what you say not everything you hear is true, and about the girls in US wearing trousers what has that Got to do with me? Is it everyone going to church that are not hypocrites? Is every body in your church holy? If not, does that make your pastor a wrong person, That's a very bad conclusion from a bad inference.

FXKing2012:

your clothing is cultural: in certain cultures (such as wt the Scots), men wear skirts, so does that mean that the men are sinning against God? It may be wrong to wear skit in Nigeria if u are a man but not in Scotland. Just dress decent and be acceptable in the society.

haibe:
You are just very right, in a country like scotland where the men have always been known for wearing skirts, its not bad, but in a country like nigeria, its not just right even as it is for women wearing trousers and that's what have been trying to explain, thank God at least one person has a clue of what have been saying since. The thing is that once men start wearing skirts, it will eventually become acceptable and we wouldn't see any thing wrong with it anymore just like that of the female, its only someone who understands where the world is going to that will know its not right.

Image123: i hope this post would be read.

Well i find it needful to take some time to talk on this matter, seeing as my friend Goshen has said that we should prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good. i DO NOT proclaim this as the gospel of salvation pleaseeeeee,it's a teaching in sincerity and truth. i do not normally 'carry this on the head, or condemn anyone for wearing what they wear, anywhere. But if truth needs be told, and honesty need be our watchword, then i find it important to say a bit on what is known. As childen of God, we are sheep, please remember that. Sheep are not too strong or too intelligent, like dogs, or goats. We should not count ourselves intelligent, especially in spiritual things, and by all means, Deut 22v5 is spiritual thing.
Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

i asked a question, and glaringly but shamefully noticed our pride in answering the question. Pride is of satan, and so also is dishonesty. And those may just be the motives God is looking at as we prove these lines of scripture.
DEUTERONOMY 22v5

(BBE) It is not right for a woman to be dressed in man's clothing, or for a man to put on a woman's robe: whoever does such things is disgusting to the Lord your God.

(CEV) Women must not pretend to be men, and men must not pretend to be women. The LORD your God is disgusted with people who do that.

(GNB) "Women are not to wear men's clothing, and men are not to wear women's clothing; the LORD your God hates people who do such things.

(KJV) 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.

(WEB) A woman shall not wear men's clothing, neither shall a man put on women's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God.
For those of us used to the king james, pertain simply means to belong to. Trousers are not the only things, but it is the subject of the thread. It is obvious that trousers belong to men, from history and from scripture, without bias or dishonesty. Many questions arise from this thread.
1. Who do trousers belong to?
2. What is the significance of this command even at the time it was given?
3. Is it for us?

So, who do trousers really belong to?
From history, it belongs to men. Without prior research, many would rightly conclude that trousers belong to men. But for our many researchers and provers on this forum/thread, please kindly read on fashion, and on clothing, and on the history of the trousers, ans slacks, and skirts maybe.
- You would come across with sentences like In the west, trousers have been the standard lower body clothing item for males since the 16th century. It became prevalent by the late 20th century for females as well
Traditionally, they were first introduced by king Wu of Zhao in 375BC, who copied the custom from non chinese horsemen on his northern border
Trousers trace their ancestry to the individual hose worn by men in the 15th century

Also please read on transvestism, and on cross dressing.
History tells of the likes of
a) Amelia Bloomer (1818-94), American reformer. Amelia Jenks Bloomer was born in Homer, New York. Famous for her stand in favor of dress reform, she appeared at her lectures during the early 1850s wearing full trousers, gathered at the ankle, under a short skirt.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

b)Rosa Bonheur (1822-1899), French painter, born in Bordeaux. She was given governmental permission to cross-dress, and made animal studies in markets and fairs while dressed as a man. In 1894 she became the first woman to receive the Grand Cross of the French Legion of Honor.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

c) Joan of Arc (1412-1431)
d) Otzi the Iceman, 5000 year old male with trousers. An interesting read BTW.

These four and others plainly show that trousers were originally pertaining to men, except we want to erase history. Also, note the dates.

From scriptures, it's common to hear people say there are no trousers in scripture. But the keen observer would see that the men wore trousers, even with whatever else they wore. As far back as the Exodus, they knew what trousers were, not to mention Otzi the Iceman.
Exodus 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their unclothedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
The word 'breeches' is another word for trousers, and it appears five times in my word search on the kjv. It's rendered trousers in some other versions BTW. It puts paid to the ignorant assertion that they only wore skirts in the Bible.

Image123: So, What is the significance of this command even at the time it was given?
When God gave this command in Deuteronomy, what was the relevance to the Israelites, if truly they all wore the same thing? Is this command not for us, simply because it sounds senseless or purposeless? Was it of more purpose or sense in the time of Moses, than it is now? i do not think that the Word of God is ever irrelevant. Anywhere we want to throw it, it is the Word of God, Deut 22v5 is scripture. That should be established. Whether this scripture should be obeyed is another matter.
First matter, in line with Deuteronomy 22:5, trousers belong to men or pertain to men, and 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. . Another scripture similar to this and found in the new testament is
1Corinth 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

The word 'effeminate' as to do with a person dressing like or behaving like the opposite gender. It is the same Spirit, thought line and wisdom that wrote the two passages, and in which the two passages are written.
i don't think i would consider any christian serious who says/suggests/infers that the book of Deuteronomy is irrelevant or should be waved aside. Jesus Christ didn't wave it aside. Coincidentally, He(Jesus Christ) quoted on record, three times from the book of Deuteronomy when tempted by the devil. It sure must have been a very important book to Him.
1) Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Deu 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that[b] man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.[/b]
2) Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Deu 6:16 Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

3) Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Deu 10:20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

i'll say it again for emphasis. i do not know true followers of Jesus who would trifle with the book of Deuteronomy, or any book of the Bible for that matter. Jesus had utmost regard for all the commandments of the Lord, and so also did all the apostles. It's today we find men more godly than God, and more apostolic than the apostles, telling us that the Word of God is useless, playing religion, or is irrelevant.

So, Is it for us?
So is Deuteronomy 22v5 really for us. In one word, yes. The whole of scripture is for us. Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things (including Deuteronomy 22v5) were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.
The sincere question should be what am I learning from here, this verse. Or else, you've already concluded there is nothing to learn, It's OT drab, i'm of the NT blab.
Also, there is a point that should be made, that there is a significant import given to that Deuteronomy 22v5 verse that is conspicuously not given to the about 10verses surrounding it. It's unequal to compare them with each other. People love to quote them in order to discredit the verse. 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.
for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Not just to you an abomination, but an abomination to the Lord. How i can explain that now, i can't. i can't explain everything BTW, neither can you the reader.
Jesus was asked Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
The answer He gave proves that not all the law are equal in God's eyes. Leviticus 19v18 is a strong testament to that fact. It lies in the midst of what many will seemingly call irrelevancies. Same too is this Deut 22v5 passage. Deut 22v5 is in the class of;
Deu 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
Deu 18:12 For all that do these things are an[b] abomination unto the LORD:[/b] and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

---

Deu 27:15 Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.
Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
Pro 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
Pro 6:18 A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
Pro 6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Pro 15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.
Pro 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

i do not know of any of these other 'abominations to God' that have been revised in the New Testament, or that do not count as abominations to God again. An unjust balance is what many of us are getting into here BTW.

Apostle John had this to say,
1John3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
sin is the transgression of the law. Ever thought of that? Anytime you transgress the law, YOU SIN.
Apostle Paul said,

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 2:14 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:
Rom 2:15 Which show 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

He's not giving the gentiles an excuse to disobey the law, on the contrary, he is commending some gentiles who obey/do the things contained in the law. the problem with the OT is not the law or the commandments, they are good and holy, not were. The problem with OT believers is their marriage to the law. NT believers should be married to Christ, not to the law. With Christ, we can obey God's law. When married to God's law, we can't.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
If you paint wearing or not wearing trousers as a burden, then you need to paint NT laws. NT laws are impossible without God's grace. OT says don't kill, NT says don't even be angry. Agree with thine adversary quickly. OT says don't commit adultery, NT says don't even think about it. Which is easier? You don't even need to be a christian/jew to keep the Old testament. For the new testament, you can't even be a human being and keep it. What's with praying and blessing your enemies, not putting away your wife or husband, rejoicing in persecution, praying without ceasing and recompensing good for evil? That's all impossible but by God.
The real and main difference in the OT and NT is that the OT says do this and that, but will not help you one bit, but is to prove that you cannot fulfill it all. The NT says far more than do this and that, but you have a bridegroom who is willing to help you, and has been helping many like me. Forget all that story about OT is old and irrelevant.

JeSoul: Much words but no substance. Religion that is a mile wide, but only a inch thick.

I wish 'believers' are able to simply recognize the difference between ceremonial laws & moral laws. Laws instituted for a season and for a specific reason vs. laws that are written on our hearts & are eternal.

Image123:
what is the difference between ceremonial and moral laws?

haibe: @Goshen is deut 22:5 not a moral law?

haibe: @Goshen is deut 22:5 not a moral law?

haibe: I believe, in
1 Timothy. Paul relied on the law regularly
and one specific example which comes to
mind is in the middle of 1 Cor 9 when he
quotes a verse from Deuteronomy and
applies it to the right for a minister to be
paid. He quoted it again in 1 Timothy 5,
"Muzzle not the ox that treadeth out the
corn."
Obvious in Deut 22:5 is the morality of it
as seen in the person violating the
prohibition becoming an abomination to
God. This is not a judicial or ceremonial
law. It is not a picture fulfilled in the
reality of Jesus nor is it a law that was
strictly applied to the nation Israel. When
you have the phrase in the OT, "all who do
so," it applies to everybody, Jew and
Gentile. This connects it with created
order.
God still expects the designed distinction
even if the culture purposefully erases it.
And the truth is, trouser-skirt has actually
not been replaced. Still today our culture
understands that the skirt/dress is
female and trousers are male, as seen in the
pictures on some bathroom doors. Now the
culture may violate that standard
repeatedly as we might expect, Christians
are not to do that, or we are living just
like the world. And there should be no
contention from the churches on such a
designed distinction (1 Cor 11:16). Why
would there be a contention? Which there
regularly is when this subject is brought
up. It is a controversial subject due to the
meaning packed into the symbols in the
designed distinctions. They are more than
about "telling the difference," but
supporting God's design, which happens to
put men in authority.
One of the temptations for Christians
since Christianity began was to
accommodate and accede to the world, so
as not to feel the reproach that comes
with obedience to God's Word. The world
loves darkness because its deeds are evil,
so marvel not if it hates you. Deutronomy 22:5 is a moral law, the bible says "all that do so" is am ABOMINATION towards God, i know we all know what an abomination is, when a law like this is broken, it led to ceremonial laws(like cleansing through the blood of the lamb because of the transgression of the moral law. E.g the abomination to God by male wearing what pertains to a female or vise versa and others), i appreciate the fact that Goshen has finally realized that the moral laws are not to be aborted and deutronomy 22:5 is just one of them(Not only the Ten commandments). You can't call deut 22:5 a ceremonial law because its not.
God bless you all.

Goshen360:

The moral law which are mainly the ten commandments

haibe: @Goshen Thanks for your question. We see all over the NT that we are to obey the OT law. Certain laws, yes, have been dropped based on God's revelation.

haibe:
However, we have plenty of basis to believe that we are to obey the law. We can't be saved by keeping it, but if we are
save then keeping it will be the tendency of our new nature.

1 John says that sin is the transgression of the law.

haibe:
In 1 Cor 9, Paul used the law to justify [size=20pt]pay[/size] for Christian servants. He quoted the text in Deuteronomy about not muzzling the ox that treads out the corn.

haibe:
Regarding Deuteronomy 22:5, it isn't a command for just the nature Israel. It is for everyone. The verse says, "all who do so." And then someone who violates the prohibition is an abomination to God. That means it is a moral law.

haibe:
And finally we have a repeat of this standard in 1 Corinthians 11 with God's support of the cultural distinction of female head coverings.

haibe: "Let
your women keep silence in the
churches: for it is not permitted
unto them to speak; hut they ore
commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith the law."
Here the law means, of course,
the first five books of the Bible.
So the same doctrine of the
Pentateuch is the doctrine of
the New Testament, when it
comes to the relationship of men
and women.."

Image123:
the guess is that it points to Christ and has been fulfilled by Christ?? don't be tempted to ask how.

Ptolomeus:
I totally agree with you.
I also prefer women WITHOUT pants!

Goshen360:

So in your church, women don't speak? Are they kept in silence? Women in your church don't lead praise and worship? Women in your church don't teach in the children church or in sunday school? Women don't make any speech as in announcement or something related? You need to explain this please.

Goshen360:

Zodiac61: According to the christian and muslim gods, being female is the sin.
Why worry about females wearing trousers?
They cannot talk in church, they are under men, they cannot enter the mosque, their evidence is worth a quater of that of a man,
men control their lives and we are worried whether wearing trousers is sinful.
Who cares except those irrational people who believe in sky fairies.