Image123:
you threw away the context of the passage, and the point haibe passed across. his point is AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW, striking on the relevance of the law to apostle Paul and the early Christians.

I didn't throw away any context. The context is "AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW". Then if it is that then you you (Image123) and haibe also follow the content of the law as per that 1 Cor 11? That is the point since the law also say so. Do You?

@ Image123,

I can also see you are cherry picking after I asked to refute your article and also, don't your denomination also preach trouser for women? Are we to say your Bishop is wrong? Are women kept silence in your denomination also AS SAITH THE LAW? Don't women speak in your church? These questions you also need to answer please. You guys are the ones mixing law (old wine) into the new wine skin (Grace). It doesn't work that way. It is also in the ceremonial that women not enter the temple when menstruating, do you practice that? Kill your wayward children, Are you also practicing that? You guys are simply not getting it.

Ptolomeus:
Hi dear friend Goshen.
Believe me, girls like that are the most ugly that exist here ...
A hug!

~ Hug returned~

Ptolomeus:
Exactly.
I did not seriously answer the thread, it is obvious that the problem is being a woman. Traditional Christians and Jews, humiliate women in every possible way. They are not allowed to speak in worship; them away, and beat them until they have authorized ...
You can seriously answer a question like that?

lolz. I told "haibe" to open a thread about women not speaking in worship places but if he doesn't, I will open it in due season. It's good we trash out this trouser nonsense first. It is obvious the religious spirit is at work. People just read into the scriptures, there is no Christian injunction that women should be silent in churches except they mis-understood Apostle Paul and the other one is women should cover their head. All is being mis-understood but we can trash it by sound teaching.

Goshen360:

lolz. I told "haibe" to open a thread about women not speaking in worship places but if he doesn't, I will open it in due season. It's good we trash out this trouser nonsense first. It is obvious the religious spirit is at work. People just read into the scriptures, there is no Christian injunction that women should be silent in churches except they mis-understood Apostle Paul and the other one is women should cover their head. All is being mis-understood but we can trash it by sound teaching.

My dear friend ... I'm always happy to greet you.
Indeed. There are biblical passages that say women must cover their heads ... and much more.
Orthodox Jews do not allow women to be with men, nor do they speak.
The Islamic ... well ... it's a very controversial topic, right?
It would be nice to be studied in this thread. I am no expert on the subject, but it is interesting.
I'm happy to have saluted!

@Goshen i don't want to draw my attention away from deut 22:5 so i may not answer some of your claims related to some other verses, first of all, the New Testament clearly
affirms that as Gentile Christians, we don’t
need to bother trying to adapt to the culture
of the Jews. We don’t need to eat what they
eat, and wear what they wear. This verse is
about clothing, so we should note that we don’t
have to try to adopt the clothing and culture
of the Israelites.
But Scripture also affirms, in both the Old
and New Testaments, that there are
differences between men and women, and that
those differences should be maintained. The
things that make us distinct should remain
distinctions.
This starts in Genesis 1:27 (chapters 1-2)
where God makes people of 2 sexes, male and
female, (maybe even with slightly different
roles – Adam naming the animals? authority?).
There is divine distinction between the sexes
among the Israelites, even among utensils that
they used (Ex. 22:6, Lev, 11:32, 13:49). Men
and women have different roles among the
Israelite people. They continue to dress
differently throughout both testaments.
In the New Testament, we see some changes.
It is especially important to notice that the
status of women is lifted up. Jesus treats
them differently than the surrounding culture.
He values them and treats them as if they are
as important as men. And later on, we see that
in the church we are all equal before God, and
equally gifted for helping God’s Church. In
Galatians 3:28, Paul explains that we are all
equal in Christ Jesus, receiving his salvation,
whether male or female, or Jew or Gentile. We
are all united together in the church.
But distinctions among the sexes remain. We
don’t completely cease to be who we are when
we come to Christ. We remain in the cultures
we come from, even though how we act
changes. We remain slave or free when we
come to Christ. We remain Jew or Gentile. We
remain man or woman. The distinctions among
the sexes don’t go away. And even the
different roles for the sexes remained. Men
and women have different though very similar
roles in marriage (Ephesians 5). They are both
supposed to serve each other, but in slightly
different ways. And men and women may or
may not have different roles in the church.
(This is a completely different debate, and I
for one believe that women should be allowed
to serve as pastors in church leadership. I
believe that certain distinctions between
gender are timeless principles that were
taught in the New Testament, like marriage
roles. But I believe that the New Testament is
not consistent in saying “No” to women in
church leadership, and that in some cases we
see in Scripture that they were allowed to be
in church leadership(phoebe). The cases where they
were told not to teach or lead, I believe are
unique. Because of the problems in the church
or surrounding city, Paul did not want women
to teach just in those cases).
One of the most important passages for our
purposes is 1 Corinthians 11. This is the
passage about women wearing head coverings
in church. It is largely ignored by churches
because we have mostly forgotten why we
don’t literally follow the teachings of this
passage. In general though, this passage is
about maintaining the cultural distinctions
among gender and dress, so that people aren’t
offended in the church and surrounding
culture. Today, this looks very different and
has nothing to do with head coverings as it did
for the Corinthian church. (Someday maybe I
will give an in depth explanation of 1
Corinthians 11). But it teaches us the principle
that Deuteronomy 22:5 teaches, that there
are still distinctions among the dress between
men and women that need to be upheld. Each
culture is different. Some cultures have
clothing for men which is similar to clothing
for women in our culture. The point is not that
all cultures need to be the same. In fact,
many of the differences in dress between men
and women might be arbitrary. And cultures
can slowly change. But in general, we must
uphold those differences in dress in a culture,
and appear as a man, or appear as a woman.
I only quoted some of this passages for references not for you to comment on them i quoted 1 corinthians 11:4-8 to show you that some laws in the OT are still binding on men and women in the NT and also see verses 14-16, we can see how those verses still focuses on gender differences
, we see that deut 22:5 is a part. Of the OT and NT doctrine that governs proper relationship between both sexes. What we christians are doing is what Jesus warned the pharises's about, they were making the word of God of none effect(mark 7:13) and we christians also are doing just the same because we don't like that commandment of deut 22:5
Once again, i am not teaching from the knowledge i have gotten from my denomination. I know deutronomy 22:5 is a moral law and we are still obliged to obey it, you can't call it a ceremonial law because its not(i wouldn't want to go too far). But this is an ethical regulation in the interest of morality, wearing what belongs to the opposite sex has always been seen as un-natural and indecent and when something is in-decent, it is not conforming with generally accepted standards of MORALITY(microsoft dictionary), how then can you think deut 22:5 isn't a moral law? And if you agree it is, what stops you from obeying it? The new testament also condemns effeminates, so what then is our problem if even the NT condemns it, i often ask "will it look right if men in Nigeria start wearing skirts? And i receive answers that it will not be right, i.e they will look like girls(effeminate). What then is our problem for God sake, why are we trying to shy away from just a simple moral law? I will ask this Question again to you Goshen, If your Dad start wearing skirts and your mum skirts also, will it make sense in your sight? Talkless of God that calls it an ABOMINATION.

@Haibe
In Africa, men wore skirts for hundreds of years!
The Jews actually used them!
Catholic priests still use the!
Which tradition are you talking about?
Here the only problem is the woman!
"The muejr should cover her head," "women are not pure" "women should be silent" "Women can not learn the Torah"
It's no moral issue, however, is a subject IMMORAL,
Rules imposed by individuals twisted brain, possibly impotent sexually, and who feel threatened by women ...
Let's see ... of individuals who believe that sex is a sin ... what else can we expect, unless the discriminatory treatment of women.

@ haibe,

First, Kindly learn to write in paragraphs.

Second, I "think" (am not passing judgment on you though) you are adding the religious spirit of the law into this matter.

haibe: @Goshen i don't want to draw my attention away from deut 22:5 so i may not answer some of your claims related to some other verses, first of all, [size=20pt]the New Testament clearly
affirms that as Gentile Christians, we don’t
need to bother trying to adapt to the culture
of the Jews. We don’t need to eat what they
eat, and wear what they wear. This verse is
about clothing, so we should note that we don’t
have to try to adopt the clothing and culture
of the Israelites.[/size]

If you agree to this, what then are you arguing about women wearing trouser or this and that. Okay, if you even say women should not wear trouser, how about women kind of trouser abi women are different from men because they have four legs? Is it not same 2 legs abi wetin you dey talk? lolz. Okay, let's put it this way, if it was an abomination in the OT to the Jews, where does it become an abomination in the Gospel abi u forget wetin abomination mean?

As for the women covering head and being silent in the church, Kindly open another thread and let's trash it our sir. I will be glad to fellowship with you on those two subject. Also, Paul didn't say ministers should be PAID, I had opened a thread for this before.

Goshen360:

I didn't throw away any context. The context is "AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW". Then if it is that then you you (Image123) and haibe also follow the content of the law as per that 1 Cor 11? That is the point since the law also say so. Do You?

@ Image123,

I can also see you are cherry picking after I asked to refute your article and also, don't your denomination also preach trouser for women? Are we to say your Bishop is wrong? Are women kept silence in your denomination also AS SAITH THE LAW? Don't women speak in your church? These questions you also need to answer please. You guys are the ones mixing law (old wine) into the new wine skin (Grace). It doesn't work that way. It is also in the ceremonial that women not enter the temple when menstruating, do you practice that? Kill your wayward children, Are you also practicing that? You guys are simply not getting it.

So if some people don't obey the word of God, what does that have to do with you? (Am not saying am disobeying the word of God), am only showing you that you can't base your obedience to God on men's standard.

haibe:
So if some people don't obey the word of God, what does that have to do with you? (Am not saying am disobeying the word of God), am only showing you that you can't base your obedience to God on men's standard.

Am not basing my obedience or teaching on men's standard. We are teaching bible here and it is simply out of NT teaching that women should not wear trouser. In fact, if most of the moral laws are repeated in the NT, why do we still act on it with the spirit of the OT and the spirit of the law? Why? Huh. I tire for una o

Goshen360: @ haibe,

First, Kindly learn to write in paragraphs.

Second, I "think" (am not passing judgment on you though) you are adding the religious spirit of the law into this matter.



If you agree to this, what then are you arguing about women wearing trouser or this and that. Okay, if you even say women should not wear trouser, how about women kind of trouser abi women are different from men because they have four legs? Is it not same 2 legs abi wetin you dey talk? lolz. Okay, let's put it this way, if it was an abomination in the OT to the Jews, where does it become an abomination in the Gospel abi u forget wetin abomination mean?

As for the women covering head and being silent in the church, Kindly open another thread and let's trash it our sir. I will be glad to fellowship with you on those two subject. Also, Paul didn't say ministers should be PAID, I had opened a thread for this before.

Lol why are you picking a verse out of a whole chapter of mine, read my post well to understand the point i gave there.
You haven't still understood my posts, that verse says "and all that do so" its an abomination to you and me
Still leave other verses for next time let's finish this one , you haven't still answered my question about your Dad wearing skirts. Am waiting.

Goshen360: @ haibe,

First, Kindly learn to write in paragraphs.

Second, I "think" (am not passing judgment on you though) you are adding the religious spirit of the law into this matter.



If you agree to this, what then are you arguing about women wearing trouser or this and that. Okay, if you even say women should not wear trouser, how about women kind of trouser abi women are different from men because they have four legs? Is it not same 2 legs abi wetin you dey talk? lolz. Okay, let's put it this way, if it was an abomination in the OT to the Jews, where does it become an abomination in the Gospel abi u forget wetin abomination mean?

As for the women covering head and being silent in the church, Kindly open another thread and let's trash it our sir. I will be glad to fellowship with you on those two subject. Also, Paul didn't say ministers should be PAID, I had opened a thread for this before.

Get the points i gave, don't just pick a verse without understanding the chapter, what you quoted was just an introduction to my post. Read well.

haibe:
Lol why are you picking a verse out of a whole chapter of mine, read my post well to understand the point i gave there.
You haven't still understood my posts, that verse says "and all that do so" its an abomination to you and me
Still leave other verses for next time let's finish this one , you haven't still answered my question about you Dad wearing skirts. Am waiting.

So you mean I will condemn my dad if he chose to wear skirts or even gown? I guess you are kidding, lolz. The answer to your "and ALL that do so" is that God who said it to the Jews but left it out to the church or Christians are you wiser than that God?

Ptolomeus: @Haibe
In Africa, men wore skirts for hundreds of years!
The Jews actually used them!
Catholic priests still use the!
Which tradition are you talking about?
Here the only problem is the woman!
"The muejr should cover her head," "women are not pure" "women should be silent" "Women can not learn the Torah"
It's no moral issue, however, is a subject IMMORAL,
Rules imposed by individuals twisted brain, possibly impotent sexually, and who feel threatened by women ...
Let's see ... of individuals who believe that sex is a sin ... what else can we expect, unless the discriminatory treatment of women.

Sorry but you lack understanding on this issue, or probably you haven't read our previous posts.

Goshen360:

So you mean I will condemn my dad if he chose to wear skirts or even gown? I guess you are kidding, lolz. The answer to your "and ALL that do so" is that God who said it to the Jews but left it out to the church or Christians are you wiser than that God?

Am not saying you should condemn your dad but will you support him if he starts wearing skirts?
And are you saying the ALL there refers to the jews only?

haibe:
Am not saying you should condemn your dad but will you support him if he starts wearing skirts?
And are you saying the ALL there refers to the jews only?

See, if within the context of the word of God my dad wear skirts and it is not wrong from the NT where I belong, then I dont see anything wrong in that especially when it concerns wearing it to worship centre.

The context of that "ALL" is for the Jews only because they are the ones that law was given to. I can show you many instances in the Bible as to how a context is used. For instance, if we are in a worship centre and the pastor say ALL should stand, Are you telling me that me that listen to that message on the tape or watch the video will also stand up?

Goshen360:

Am not basing my obedience or teaching on men's standard. We are teaching bible here and it is simply out of NT teaching that women should not wear trouser. In fact, if most of the moral laws are repeated in the NT, why do we still act on it with the spirit of the OT and the spirit of the law? Why? Huh. I tire for una o

Who is acting with the spirit of OT here, simple question, is it a sin and we said yes since its an abomination to God, time doesn't change Gods commandment for you to obey.

@Goshen when Jesus tells his disciples to love their neighbours as their self, does he want only christians to love their neighbour as their selves?

haibe:

Sorry but you lack understanding on this issue, or probably you haven't read our previous posts.

Believe me I've read enough.
People traumatized, sick, disguise their true feelings with alleged moral rules.
There are people who condemn se.x, arguing that it is sin, and instead, they are satisfied with pornography ...
Twisted thoughts that seek justified on moral or religious rules nonexistent.

haibe:
Who is acting with the spirit of OT here, simple question, is it a sin and we said yes since its an abomination to God, time doesn't change Gods commandment for you to obey.

If you are not acting in the spirit of the OT, and you call it a sin, then you should know and understand that was based on the OT ceremonial laws and never a single verse in the NT repeat such a thing for Christians. This is the reason I said you are acting in the spirit of the OT.

Goshen when Gog says something is an abomination to him, what stops it from being an abomination to him in the context of deut 22:5?

haibe: @Goshen when Jesus tells his disciples to love their neighbours as their self, does he want only christians to love their neighbour as their selves?

lolz. Do you know that Salvation is not originally for the Gentiles but we were ENGRAFTED into the covenant and not limited to a nation only called nation of Israel. I have argued here many times that Matthew to John, the OT was still in effect and even it Jesus said it or not. it is instinctive that we don't hate. Besides, love is all over the NT.

Goshen360:

If you are not acting in the spirit of the OT, and you call it a sin, then you should know and understand that was based on the OT ceremonial laws and never a single verse in the NT repeat such a thing for Christians. This is the reason I said you are acting in the spirit of the OT.

Ceremonial what? What is the difference between a moral law and a ceremonial law and what makes deut 22:5 a caremonial law?

haibe: Goshen when Gog says something is an abomination to him, what stops it from being an abomination to him in the context of deut 22:5?

You still not getting it that Deut 22:5 is NOT for the church. There are other ceremonial laws in that Deut 22, do you also follow them? If it is/was an abomination, that is/was to Jews NOT to the church/Gentiles. This is the simple point or truth you don't want to agree with.

Ptolomeus,
I hid your first 'comment' as its inappropriate in the spirit of this thread. I know you meant no offense brother .

Goshen,
I admire your patience & humility more than anything. And I thank you for taking the time to respond to the issues scripturally, me I no fit lol, matters like these just prick me the wrong way.

Goshen360:

lolz. Do you know that Salvation is not originally for the Gentiles but we were ENGRAFTED into the covenant and not limited to a nation only called nation of Israel. I have argued here many times that Matthew to John, the OT was still in effect and even it Jesus said it or not. it is instinctive that we don't hate. Besides, love is all over the NT.

You haven't still answered the question

haibe:
Ceremonial what? What is the difference between a moral law and a ceremonial law and what makes deut 22:5 a caremonial law?

I have explain the difference up there and am not repeating that sir. If you are to follow women not wearing trouser, kindly read the whole of that Deut 22 and also follow other ceremonial laws or ordinances therein.

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.

Ptolomeus:
Exactly.
I did not seriously answer the thread, it is obvious that the problem is being a woman. Traditional Christians and Jews, humiliate women in every possible way. They are not allowed to speak in worship; them away, and beat them until they have authorized ...
You can seriously answer a question like that?

It is truly unfortunate that beliefs like these lead non-christians to arrive at these conclusions - and Zodiac & ptolomeus are 100% right to surmise as they have - in the 'christian' religion being a woman is the problem.

JeSoul: Ptolomeus,
I hid your first 'comment' as its inappropriate in the spirit of this thread. I know you meant no offense brother .

Goshen,
I admire your patience & humility more than anything. And I thank you for taking the time to respond to the issues scripturally, me I no fit lol, matters like these just prick me the wrong way.

Thank you my sister. One thing I don't like among my Christian people is that, a forum like this should be an avenue where we come and scrutinize our denominational teachings if they were right or wrong and also test all spirits but we have people coming to dump their denominational teachings on the body of Christ and call it sound doctrines. I don't accept a teaching because my church teach it but I prove it from the word and see if it's not a tradition of men. Many things/teachings are going on in the body of Christ.

Goshen360:

Thank you my sister. One thing I don't like among my Christian people is that, a forum like this should be an avenue where we come and scrutinize our denominational teachings if they were right or wrong and also test all spirits but we have people coming to dump their denominational teachings on the body of Christ and call it sound doctrines. I don't accept a teaching because my church teach it but I prove it from the word and see if it's not a tradition of men. Many things/teachings are going on in the body of Christ.

And it is very good as you, haibe & image are talking it out - there are many silent readers who will profit from your discussion. And oh, I have discussed the issue of women speaking in church, women wearing make-up etc etc at least twice with snr brother Image in the past so I will just take the back seat on this one . Cheers & Godbless brother.

Goshen360:

You still not getting it that Deut 22:5 is NOT for the church. There are other ceremonial laws in that Deut 22, do you also follow them? If it is/was an abomination, that is/was to Jews NOT to the church/Gentiles. This is the simple point or truth you don't want to agree with.

You see where you are getting it wrong. Because God gave his laws to the isrealites doesn't mean the commandments is meant for them only, of course one nation has to be priviledged to be the one to receive the law from God. Because Jesus did not live in nigeria doesn't mean his commandments are not to be obeyed by Nigerians, he is the God of all flesh and his law is universal. So if we were able to obey the law by our power, you think God will regulate only israel? And leave other gentiles to regulate themselves? Please if God doesn't like something, he doesn't . Whether Jew or Gentile, it is still an abomination to him.

Albert Barnes, the commentator who said
that once the distinction between men and
women is gone there would be great
"danger to purity" was in fact very
prophetic when he wrote those words.
What is fruit of all this? GROSS
IMMORALITY... just like in the days of
Noah.
Even the so called females trousers are now also worn by men and they call it SKINNY this SKINNY that, so can we now see that we are heading to a world where there wouldn't be gender distinctiveness, i know the arguments of some people will be that females trousers are different in that they are tighter or so but they fail to realise that boys have also made theirs tighter and calling it SKINNY trousers, its only someone with spiritual mind that will understand the threat of satan. Things like this will even encourage same gender sex, you might not all understand yet but just don't be surprised when you see great evil and sins start happening as a result of breaking deut 22:5.

Goshen360:

My brother, You need to STUDY the "Epistle to the Hebrews". It was written to the Jews who converted to Christianity and due to their holding to "laws and ceremony" of Moses that lead them to Judaism, Paul was wrote to them to tell them everything Jesus did was BETTER THAN EVERYTHING IN THE OT. My brother, the OT is a type and shadows and NOT the very image or substance themselves. If a Jew convert to Christianity, they are NOT expected to follow the ways of the Mosaic Law but the Christian law. When a Jews "CONVERT" to Christianity, he/she "crosses" from OT to NT which is a better covenant. All ceremonial and Mosaic laws are ALL GONE according to the epistle to the Hebrews or Jews. All your answers lies in Hebrews. I wont go deeper into that.

Again, it's NOT about having my life to live or something. It's about proving ALL things. We have the "Canon" of scriptures to validate these teaching. I do not intend to refute your denominational teachings even the so called "RESTITUTION" but to say that a woman wearing a trouser IS A SIN is simply NOT a NT Christian teachings. It might be your denominational teaching, that's okay but it is NOT a sound doctrine/teaching for the NT Christians. When you say that it a sin for a woman to wear trouser based Deut 22:5, then we should simply ask you if you also keep other regulations and ceremonial laws of Moses? What God had called clean, please don't call it unclean. Trouser wearing don't defile a woman BUT the motives or heart with which she wears it can defile her.

Don't accept a teaching simple because your Pastor preached it, you need to scan such teachings by your own research efforts. I respect your denomination but many of your teachings are simply wrong, they are man made traditions of men. Was it not your denomination that used to teach in the past, people should not watch T.V? Was it not your denomination that teach people should not be educated and when the time came to spread the Gospel to other countries, they wanted educated people. I can go on and on but It's just not right to say wearing a trouser by a woman defiles her meanwhile, women of your denomination wear it here in the USA and women in Nigeria can't wear it, that is hypocrisy my brother and it is not the Gospel.

it hurts me to say this, but you are a very confused being... are you in that congregation that permits masturbation? hair perming? you sound very much like one... interpreting the scriptures based on your own understanding SMH