Goshen360: @ Image123,

I don't want to go into the debate of ceremonial and moral law stuff with you over and over again. If your claim is that the word "ceremonial and moral" don't appear in the bible and so, there is nothing like that. Well, permit me to say you err in that aspect. Ceremonial includes ordinances as I have stated before. Do you see any ordinances in the ten commandment? Where are you only holding onto trouser? What about stone rebellious kids? What about non-virgins? What about the ones that relates to eating? what about different cloths materials? What about mixed farming? What about wearing tassels and fringes?

For you to say because ceremonial as a word don't appear means we are not making sense is to say we should not believe in trinity, trinity don't appear in the bible. There are many words we use as terminologies today just to explain issues but they dont appear in the bible and you know it. So don't come up with such teachings as there is no ceremonial or moral in the bible. I can as well debate you on this topic without the use of ceremonial or moral law usage, if we are to generalize the law.

WELL, KINDLY ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOVE AND LET'S GO FROM THERE.

Proves that you are reading me with bias, and the usual denominational googles. i know you, your comprehension is not that bad.i didn't say that there is nothing like ceremonial and moral laws. I even said that the terms are for our better understanding. The point i made was that one cannot emphatically state that ceremonial laws are unimportant, and moral laws are, because[b] one[/b] the terms are not even found in the Bible, and because two, we still observe some ceremonial laws till date like Holy communion and water baptism. Just calm down, and at least read. though i must commend that you are still trying even, than some who would just pass off lazy general comments.

So now you agree with me that the first (OLD) covenant WAS WITH ISRAEL? AND NOT WITH THE CHURCH?

This is disingenuous. You are playing catch him in his words here. i specifically said The covenant/agreement that He made with Israel that Aaron and his house would offer Him sacrifices, offerings, and burnt offerings for their sins. Read the passage please, and its context.
That is, the agreement/promise/testament/covenant THAT Aaron and his house would offer Him sacrifices, offerings, and burnt offerings for their sins. God had several agreements with Israel, with Abraham, with Isaac. You ought to read in contextg to know WHICH He is referring to. Jesus came to take away Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin. He did the will of God and that verse 10 says By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. He came to take the place of the lamb as a better, more excellent sacrifice.

Goshen360: @ Image123,

Please STOP all these long story stuff, it's boring and distortion to this thread. I asked you a question and you responded that the "old covenant was the covenant God made WITH ISRAEL THAT AARON....". So I asked you will you NOW agree with me that the Old Covenant was only given to ISRAEL?.

Now, if you insist on we obeying the laws of Moses (generalizing the law now), Kindly answer this second question and let's go straight to the point:

If you have a rebellious son/daughter, will you stone that child to death? Answer YES or NO Please and let's treat issues straight.

The long and boring stuff was an answer to someone's question and for many a 'silent reader'. Take your time to read it, you may gain something there. It contains answers to youtr questions BTW i know well how to engage in almost meaningless notgoinganywherre one-liners.

@ Image123,

This is NOT about catch you at your words brother. We are talking bible here and end up with whatever is sound doctrine, okay. The truth is your words mentioned "the covenant made with ISRAEL THAT Aaron ....". You accept the fact that Aaron is of Israel. That is the fact one.

Second, you seems to be dodging an important question that will take us further and that is,

Goshen360:
Now, if you insist on we obeying the laws of Moses (generalizing the law now), Kindly answer this second question and let's go straight to the point:

If you have a rebellious son/daughter, will you stone that child to death? Answer YES or NO Please and let's treat issues straight.

For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God's grace. Gal 5:4 NLT

Since you said we still keep some laws like the ceremonial laws even like baptism and communion. I will later tell you what you might not know about the difference. Kindly answer the above question and then we can proceed. I know you said I should read the stuff you have up there BUT I SIMPLY WANT A YES OR NO ANSWER FROM YOU. No long story.

I've stated that there were different covenants God made with Israel and i specified the exact covenant the verse is talking about. it's up to you wat you choose to do with my words.
if you truly want to learn and prove all things, go and read those long posts. The answer to your question is there. not every answer is a yes or no if you truly want to understand except your purpose is just to score points. two plus two is not a simple yes or no. Jesus didn't just answer questions with a simple yes or no. Sometimes, He took chapters to answer.

Image123:

Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Love is the fulfilling of the law. It's contradictory telling people not to fulfil the law.

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

So loving your neighbours and loving God is what the whole law is about. When we say ceremonial laws in the OT, those are those rites and formalties, many of which we do not need to waste time doing again BECAUSE Jesus has done them for us. Like cleansings and animal sacrifices. Take this turtle dove, sprinkle that, if a person sees this he is unclean till evening, and its likes. Now we know that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, hence we do not need to take no turtle dove or heifer, we have a substitute, a better one at that. We are not unclean as Christ has cleansed us, and shown us a new and living way. We can eat his and that BECAUSE God has cleansed. But that is not to say we should not do anything ceremonial, weddings are ceremonial, the Lord's supper is ceremonial, water baptism is. So its wrong to conclude that ceremony is gone. Some parts of church services are ceremonial and ordered/arranged. [size=15pt]Every law of God is love and still very applicable to us, any.[/size] They are love. The Bible is our basic instruction and manual for living on earth. It's not all about heaven and hell. MAny ask, so you mean if i do this or don't do that, God will send me to Heaven or Hell. Not everything is for qualification to Heaven or Hell. Some are for your health, some are customary, for basic relationships and inter-relationships, some for the ecology, and on and on. Let me quickly breeze through that chapters fridayiwere asked on. It is still much applicable and beneficial to us. I'll cut for easier reading.

I have read ALL your articles and I will respond to the ones I will because NOT all are worth responding to. I agree with you on the basis on love and law. That is, if you love your neighbor, you will not kill him/her, you will not sleep with his/her spouse, you will not steal his/her stuffs etc. However, these are eternal moral laws that even some unbeliever will observe. You don't have to be a Christian to know that. This is one of the thing am talking about.

You talked about observing communion, baptism etc as STILL being ceremonial laws that we still observe. This is one of the reason I didn't want to read you post in the first place BUT thank God I did simply because I have known you to always go in circles on subject issue which you demonstrated the same when we both went head to head on the subject of tithing. This same thing you are demonstrating here.

By referring to baptism, communion and some other parts of worship as being ceremonial, you should know that those being observed as ceremonial are NOT OT based but rather based on Christ's teachings and commandments or what Christ told us to observe to do. You also agreed that the ceremonials of the OT is gone and yet you bring in the ceremonials of NT. You should know they are different based on the spirit on which they are observed. You are simply mixing issues up here simply because you want to make a point BUT you just agreed that the OT ceremonial is GONE.

The other statement of yours am afraid of is the one highlighted above. Am afraid that statement is half truth because the laws of Moses DON'T APPLY TO THE CHURCH AND CHRISTIANS.

To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 1 Cor. 9:21 Niv

When I am with the Gentiles who do not follow the Jewish law, I too live apart from that law so I can bring them to Christ. But I do not ignore the law of God; I obey the law of Christ. 1 Cor. 9:21 (NLT)

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, Romans 2:14 Niv

Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. Romans 2:14 NLT

I will respond to the rest of your comments according thereafter this post.

Image123:
This is permission and condition for marrying a captive, as usually the law didn't encourage them to marry non-israelites. In this case, this is a captive that could either be killed or become a slave. But they were permitted, if you "fall in love", instead of the other two options, you could marry her. But she is given her rights and privileges, and you are inturn given a full month to consider your decisions. They didn't go ahead to r.ape them or behave like the gentiles simply because she is a captive. It was a sane thing and a very much enviable law that we need in our days.

This is your response to the laws stated in Deut 21:10-14 and I quote so that the readers can follow accordingly:

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Everyone reading the context of this law from God will simple notice the context is "WHEN THOU GOEST FORTH TO WAR AGAINST THINE ENEMIES.....". The context of this law is Physical war. At this point, I will like you (Image123) to answer everyone reading if you still go to physical war against your enemies as Christians? Do you still fight physical wars? If you do, then apply this law to yourself otherwise, stop telling Christians to obey the laws given to the Jewish people according to 1 Cor. 9:21 (NLT)

Image123:

Can anybody say this should not apply to us today? We are not under the law, therefore we should be partial to our children, that's wrong forever.

The above is your response to Deut 21:15-17. I will quote it again,

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, [both] the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit [that] which he hath, [that] he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, [which is indeed] the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for] the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his.

Again, you are being partial in how you interpret the word of God and not dividing the word of truth rightly. The context of this law also states it clearly, "WHEN A MAN HAVE TWO WIVES". Are you saying Christians should marry two wives in order to effect this law....given to the Jews? I don't have problem with this laws when it is concern with unbelievers BUT to tell us (Christians) that this law applies to us is to mean we should marry two wives because how will I apply this law if I don't marry TWO wives? How ?

I will respond to the rest according thereafter so the post wont be too long for others to read. My next comment will be on your reply to Deut. 21:18-21 on the rebellious child.

Image123:
Please, note that this is a judicial matter. It's not jungle justice. They didn't bring the child to the neighbourhood and stone him. They didn't stone him out of anger in the house because he didn't go and fetch water. They took him to the judges, the elders. When? When they felt he was useless. He was not just stubborn and rebellious, it was his nature, they had chastened him, and talked to him but he would not hear father or mother. They had lost hope. What do you want to do with such a child in the first place? Well, the judgement then was to kill him, so that evil is put away, and others will hear and fear. What kind of child would not listen to his parents or to elders, but will be rebellious. Rebellious is defying authority, fighting to overthrow a government or other authority. What sort of useless child is that? You want to pamper that kind of kid. No, of course take him to the authorities that can correct him. We still judge such a useless child today! Do you say, we are under the new testament, leave him. No, we judge him. [b][size=20pt]He's just not going to be killed because of grace that came by Jesus. It's the same grace that saved the woman caught in adultery from being stoned.[/size] [/b]The adultery is wrong and will continually be wrong, that's the law. The stoning is good and right and holy, and Jesus said someone should cast the first stone. He didn't argue against the judgement, but by His grace now, the sinner/convict need not be condemned. He/she can be converted. The adulteress can become a child of God by grace, so too can the rebellious hopeless son become born again, and fervent in spirit. It is grace that brings this. If he/she continue in sin, they will ultimately still be judged by God. The new testament doesn't give them a go ahead to transgress the law.

Image123, I can't BUT laugh endlessly at you and your cherry picking the word of God. I think you "personally" have issues with women wearing trouser. If not, you won't be hiding under Grace in "some" aspect and then throwing out right "laws" in another aspect. Now, let me split ALL your cherry picking and tear them apart. Listen to what that laws says:

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear".

You started out by saying it is a "this is a judicial matter. It's not jungle justice" and you also admitted that AFTER the Parents had corrected the child and the child didn't listen, THEN they take the child to the authorities and then the authorities will judge the child BUT you came back and hide under the Grace that that child (because we are under the Grace) will not be stoned to death BUT THE JUDGMENT THAT IS TO BE GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES IS THAT THEY SHALL BRING THAT CHILD TO THE CITY AND THERE HE (THE CHILD) SHALL BE STONED WITH STONES THAT HE DIE. Abeg, people make una help me read the verse and Judgment again because this judgment didn't leave room for Grace because the children of Israel are NOT under NT/GRACE at the time of this law so why hide under the Grace in this case? Huh? Why? This law simply says, bring the child to the city (after all efforts to correct and still prove rebellious) and stone him to death. Very simple law to obey....isn't it? No need hiding behind Grace, just follow and obey that law my brother and it shall be well with you. Even today's authority of any country will NOT do that and stone your own child to death and kill such child just because he is rebellious.

Again, you quickly supported your Grace stuff with the story of the woman caught in adultery. Still I can't help BUT laugh at you. I thought you should know that the law of Moses that apply to the rebellious child is different to the law that applies to adulterous man/woman. Also, Jesus was still under the law at the time of the adulterous woman, if NOT they won't bring her to Jesus as demanded to stone her based on what the law of Moses said so Grace you are hiding behind had NOT YET BEING GIVEN AT THAT TIME BECAUSE CHRIST HAD NOT DIED YET. I thought you are bible smart to know that.

Now, Let me split your "law conscientiousness" apart again. In the case of the adulterous woman, IT TAKES TWO TO COMMIT ADULTERY AND THE PHARISEES ONLY BROUGHT THE WOMAN TO BE STONED TO DEATH. For Goodness sake, where is the man in action? Huh? Where is he? maybe you can look for the man for us, lolz. Can you see the injustice to the law committed by the Pharisees? How can you stone only one person in the case of adultery when the original says both of them should be stoned? Can you see how you are hiding under Grace now just because you wanted to make a point. The two instances are not parallel (the adulterous woman and the rebellious child). Kindly look for another story to justify your law claim here because the case of a rebellious child only takes that child alone and the case of the adulterous woman takes two to commit adultery and only the woman was brought for judgment. This is partial and injustice. If I were a judge in a court and such case was brought to me, I will dismiss it without further delay if they can't produce the man in action. Jesus even had time talking/debating with those heartless Pharisees. "Maybe" the man is one of the Pharisees, only God know. If not, why will they hide the man?

Lastly, the final part of that laws says, "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and [size=15pt]all Israel[/size] shall hear, and fear" Vs. 21.

I think you have problem admitting that the "ALL" in the context of these laws is ISRAEL. I don't know why you keep omitting this very truth. Yes it is a law, call it whatever kind of law you want to call it, it is a law to ALL ISRAEL, not to the Gentiles and the Church of God. There are three groups that the bible addressed: Jews, Gentiles and the Church. 1 Corinthians 10:32 Kjv

Image123:
Like i said at the start of this thread, i do not normally or usually go about correcting or condemning people on this verse and its applications. But if we are going to be truthful, at least for the purposes of this thread, and to prove all things. Then we should note that this verse sits in a higher class. A class of ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD THY GOD. So that even if by any chance, other verses around it are trivialized, this verse shouldn't. Be that as it may, i've talked much on it, i'm not going on another talk. But it seems clear and undisputed that trousers belong to men from history and from the Bible. It is some years ago that women began to wear trousers. Otzi the IceMAN is said to have been enjoying what belongs/pertains to him B.C. Some people ask of clothing like stockings/socks and co. It does not belong to any one gender as it were. Anyone can wear socks, slippers, glasses/specs. They do not GENERALLY specifically belong to one gender.

This is your response to Deut.22:5 and which is what this thread is all about: wearing trouser by woman or not. You said this verse still applies to us or everyone (Christians) because it sits on the higher class of ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD THY GOD. Again, you failed to understand the context is to ISRAEL NOT CHRISTIANS. The context of "ALL" that do such is ALL ISRAEL. Read again Deut 21:21; 22:22

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, [both] the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. 22:22 Kjv

Image123:
This is a responsibility on agricultural standards. God's promises come with conditions and responsibility. Blessed shall be your this and that is not beans or magic, it took discipline, not just trial and error, and crazy research that could lead to permanent damage of the best specie due to multiple crossings over time. Also deals with animal cruelty, and spiritually unequal yoke. They all still have their applications.. When you bring a donkey and a cow to work together, you would actually be punishing them, especially the donkey, and getting your work done. It is still wrong to do that today. You let those animal rights people catch you. [size=15pt]On the clothing, it still applies that we do not follow the world in its fashions but be simple and modest/moderate. A garment of divers sorts was not simple in those days in comparison(please do you research instead of throwing questions only, i also like and know how to be the silent reader, setting tough questions).[/size]

This is your response to Deut 22:6-11. This is a clear case of you doing another cherry picking on the laws you are fighting that it still holds. Take a look at verse 11 again and read what it clearly says and listen to yourself what you are saying in contrary.

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together. vs.11

The next time you come open to argue this, kindly check the materials and content of your clothings. Okay. This is not talking about moderation. Thought am fully in support of moderate dressing as the bible says for us the church/christians/body of Christ. So I will preach same thing. This law clear says "woollen and linen TOGETHER. Stop applying to moderation where that law says another thing. This means you soft on the laws that are very though for you to obey and kick hard on the ones you have "personal" issues with. You have to rightly divide the word of truth.

Image123:
The verse is in line with the previous, the children of Israel were expected to be different from others, distinct, separate. Believers today are under same rule, be separate and distinct, even in your appearance, modesty and sobriety.
Num 15:38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribbon of blue:
Num 15:39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring: [size=15pt]The Israelis still wear this stuff, today[/size], we have the word of God written in our hearts, but the applications of this law remain significant. What you wear says a lot about you, and how you would be addressed. the people of the world are bold and eager to print all sort of rubbish and sentences and pictures on shirts. i find gullible christains wear shirts that say all sort of ungodly stuff. Things that even ordinary serious muslins would not wear. Your cloth is your identity most times. It easily says you are a fan of a particular football club or music star. We should do all things to glorify God. 1John 3:13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

This is your response to Deut 22:12 and it says,

Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest [thyself].

So here you agree the laws ARE FOR ISRAEL. That is why I highlighted ALL the above in RED for you. Yes, believer are to be different BUT NOT GOING ABOUT WEARING FRINGES TO DISTINGUISH US FROM OTHERS and again you are twisting this law to suit what you want to say or reading into the word of God. This law didn't say moderate, it simply says "make fringes upon the four quarters of they vesture" If you say this law meant to dress differently, am very sorry, you don't understand what this fringes meant. Go and learn the significant of fringes. I told you earlier this things are types and shadows. I give you assignment to go learn what "fringes" is pointing to for the believers. It is not dressing differently and it is not talking about moderate even though the NT exhort us to be moderate in our dressing.

Image123:

Here is the basis on which Jesus Christ was talking about divorce wherre He said Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Only that He wouldn't go with the stoning judgement because He brought grace. This is the same chapter.

This is your comments on Deut 22:13-21. The law clearly says something and you are here saying a different thing and blending it with Grace whereas the law at this time didn't leave room for Grace you are talking about. Where exactly do you stand? You can't be sitting on the fence quoting one hand law and the other hand Grace. Grace had not being given at this time of the law, so just follow it straight up. Okay. The law says "stone to death" but you have problem with this kind of laws that is the simple reason behind your hiding behind the Grace. This law did not says....because of Grace, spare her/him. You are the one saying that. Again, verse 21 simply says, "Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the LovePeddler in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you".

My brother, stoning to death by the law simply means stone to death, no Grace applied here sir. Grace was applied to the church after the death of Christ. Maybe you need ABC teaching on Grace but I know you are better than that.

Lastly, on your Deut 22:22-30. Again, I say the context is talking about "IN ISRAEL". I don't know how many years it will take us to understand that. Please, stop pulling scriptures out of context simply because you have "personal" issues with women wearing trouser. If you or we christians are to follow ALL these laws of Moses, aside the laws of the land we live, I tell you the truth, we cannot follow ALL of them and once we break one, we are guilty of ALL says the scriptures. Verse 22 says,

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, [both] the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

The way God speaks is very clear. Stop mixing Grace up with the law. It doesn't work that way. Christians are to also obey the laws of our land and be the best examples BUT certainly NOT the laws of Moses. It's simply NOT meant for Christians. Jews can still keep obeying the laws of Moses if they care but Christians obey the laws of Christ/NT laws as I have shown you from previous scriptures. Even at that, that is the reason the book of Hebrews was written to the Jews because they still to keep the Mosaic laws and Paul wrote to them God doesn't work that way anymore but has now announced His word in Christ. Heb 1:1-2. There was a time it was accepted to work through Moses and the Prophets but God changed it. Remember when Moses, Elijah and Jesus was on the mount of transfiguration, what did God say from above about Jesus? God didn't say listen to Moses nor Elijah, BUT listen to Jesus for He is the beloved. This is the revelation seen throughout the book of Hebrews. Jesus is better than Moses, Angels, the Prophets, the hall of faith etc for we now live by the faith of the Son of God.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Gal 2:20 Kjv.

Moses didn't die for me and none of the old Patriarch died for me BUT Jesus. Who do I listen to then? Infact, Jesus said, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment". John 7:24

I might need to continue this debate with you....if need be. I don't see where Jesus called wearing trouser by women a sin. Saying that is just not the Gospel of the NT, it might be said of the OT/Judaism BUT NOT for Christians sir.

The thread was about whether it was sin or not the women to wear pants ...
In a dialogue of the deaf, it promotes the art of distorting the thread.
I think the photo I had posted was much more illustrative than all these quotations to the Bible, about Abraham, Isaac and so on. (all adulterers).

haibe?

Goshen360: Moses didn't die for me and none of the old Patriarch died for me BUT Jesus. Who do I listen to then? Infact, Jesus said, "[b]Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment". John 7:24 [/b]

Had to re-visit this particular sentence. iguess i've said what needs to be said concerning the other posts, and haibe is not here. i've seen this scripture misquoted in two other threads after it was misquoted here, so i should address it.
When Jesus said Judge not according to appearance but judge righteous judgement, we should at least understand the context if not the meaning. Firstly, i find it a huge pretense for Goshen to hold on to a statement of Jesus not addressed to His disciples, but to people who sought to kill Jesus. This is the very reason for which Goshen throws away matthew 23. Anyway, the verse clearly says JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT. It doesn't just say judge not according to appearance. The verse simply means DO NOT BE PARTIAL IN JUDGEMENT. It's not saying we should not look at people and judge them. Of course we should. We as christians are to ABSTAIN FROM ALL APPEARANCE OF EVIL. that's impossible without judging/discerning the appearance. What exactly does it mean by judge righteous judgement? Does it mean i should judge without appearance, a non-appearance, a disappearance? No, it means to judge without partiality.
Jesus had healed a man in John 5, and the people wanted to kill him. They were looking for Him at the feast in John 7. then Jesus told them of how they were partial with the law of Moses. they broke the Sabbath to circumcise, but were angry with Jesus for 'breaking the sabbath' to heal. Hence the Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. We shouldn't now distort this scripture to talk about people wearing trousers. It simply saying don't be partial in judgement.

Image123:
Had to re-visit this particular sentence. iguess i've said what needs to be said concerning the other posts, and haibe is not here. i've seen this scripture misquoted in two other threads after it was misquoted here, so i should address it.
When Jesus said Judge not according to appearance but judge righteous judgement, we should at least understand the context if not the meaning. Firstly, i find it a huge pretense for Goshen to hold on to a statement of Jesus not addressed to His disciples, but to people who sought to kill Jesus. This is the very reason for which Goshen throws away matthew 23. Anyway, the verse clearly says JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT. It doesn't just say judge not according to appearance. The verse simply means DO NOT BE PARTIAL IN JUDGEMENT. It's not saying we should not look at people and judge them. Of course we should. We as christians are to ABSTAIN FROM ALL APPEARANCE OF EVIL. that's impossible without judging/discerning the appearance. What exactly does it mean by judge righteous judgement? Does it mean i should judge without appearance, a non-appearance, a disappearance? No, it means to judge without partiality.
Jesus had healed a man in John 5, and the people wanted to kill him. They were looking for Him at the feast in John 7. then Jesus told them of how they were partial with the law of Moses. they broke the Sabbath to circumcise, but were angry with Jesus for 'breaking the sabbath' to heal. Hence the Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. We shouldn't now distort this scripture to talk about people wearing trousers. It simply saying don't be partial in judgement.

So do you think you really want to talk about the meaning and interpretation of that verse as meaning we should not be partial in our judgment? Do you really wanna talk about it? Then I will show you that you are the very one being partial in your judgment. Why will the same chapter in Deut 22 tell you to do something and you hide behind the Grace that ONLY that such person will not be killed BUT the same chapter of Deut 22 says women should NOT wear what belongs to a man and you hold on to that. Who then is partial?

i have already explained the fundamentals of that passage. You may have understood if you bothered to read before you replied then. There is no partiality, the law is the law and it applies. the law/instruction is not exactly the same as the judgement. Judgement follows if you disobey the law. verse 5 is not judgement, the verses i talked on grace are judgement verses. Grace now allows you not to stone or kill, but the laws of obedience and chastity are still relevant.

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scripture might have hope"(Romans 15:4).
I have said all that is necessary, maybe we just need to read the previous posts meditatively, of course not everyone will accept the truth because its bitter, why then should i keep wasting my time..

Dear friend,
I was reading your question and seeing what others replied.
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.
Due. 22:5
I saw others write about that scripture.
I am 17 years old I am seeking to know The Lord with all my heart.
I believe that all those scriptures have a meaning for our day! Every word in that Bible is for us and we need to and want to follow every word.
I believe God created the man to be different from the women. And women to be different from man. Every thing in the Old Testament is just as important as the New Testament.
When God sent Adam and Eve out if the garden He made them clothes to put on. In this day women and men are taking there clothes off, and now they are right at the beginning.
In Matthew 5:28 says
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Women because of how they are dressing, it is causing men to commit adultery with her in his heart, and it's the women's fault.

God made us ladies to act and dress as ladies.
Women didn't wear pants until World War I and from then on they didn't want act like homemakers anymore because they worked in factories while the men were at war. Then on they wanted to work out side the home, when God made us to be homemakers and mothers that would teach our children how to grow up of love God and serve their future husbands.
Paul said in 1 Timothy 2:9a
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel.

I do believe it is important for a woman to wear dress or skirts. I believe that is what God truly wants us a ladies to do.
I hope I wasn't to hard in what I said. I pray I helped in some way.
But most of all I pray you find what your looking for!
God Bless you!
Mindy

The position of the Bible is very clear on this, why ask dumb questions?

FXKing2012: The position of the Bible is very clear on this, why ask dumb questions?

There is no such thing as a dumb question. We must be willing to explain things to others in a loving way, to help them understand when they ask.

joyfulmaiden:

There is no such thing as a dumb question. We must be willing to explain things to others in a loving way, to help them understand when they ask.

I beg to differ, there is such a thing as dumb question and this is one of them. Wonder why people expend so much time and energy arguing and debating issues that dont add any value to mankind.

FXKing2012:
I beg to differ, there is such a thing as dumb question and this is one of them. Wonder why people expend so much time and energy arguing and debating issues that dont add any value to mankind.

I can respect that, but everybody has their own opinion.

Dressing is the subject of this letter. Please stop now and get a Bible. You must hear these things from God personally. Read each scripture and remember you will be asked about this too on judgement day. Don’t let anyone deceive you to think otherwise. So read up the passages. I hope to say that which I have learnt and where my own opinions are stated, I will point them out, as opposed to what God says directly which I will state without apology.
Purpose always reveals the proper way a thing is to be used. If you need to sip tea a little at a time, it only makes sense that you look for a spoon and not a fork. A fork was not made for the purpose of doing things like that. Gloves were not made to be worn on the feet neither are cars made to be driven around inside houses. Everything has a purpose and when it is not used correctly, it is called abuse (from abnormal use).
The devil (which means ‘deceiver’ while ‘satan’ means ‘adversary/enemy/opponent’) fights Gods plans by making us humans abuse the things He (God) has given us. A man wanting to sleep with another man is an abnormal use of a man. So is a person killing another to eat i.e. for food (cannibalism). It was never meant to be that another human serve as part of our dish! But it happens. In the professional world, a lawyers wig and gown are not to be worn in a hospital theatre, and neither should a doctor’s coat be worn in court. Doing it would be considered outrageous and non permissible. As a matter of fact, people will consider us mad. (A mad man is one who uses things in an abnormal way or in a way that most would be too embarrassed to, especially in the open: think about it.) To keep from abuse of things therefore, we must understand what they were made for! Always.
What were clothes originally made for? – As a covering for unclothedness. God first introduced clothes for his image i.e. man.(Gen.3:21)If satan can make us forget what clothes are for, he has won another battle against us.
[b]Clothes that don’t cover unclothedness but rather expose it, are not serving God’s purposes. If it is too tight, it is exposing unclothedness. The same goes for when it is too low, short, flimsy or transparent, clingy, etc. The big deal is not whether we wear trousers or skirts; the scriptures have no problem with that.[/b][/color] From when trousers where introduced around the 6th century BC (before Jesus was born), men and women have been known to wear them. Trousers were always feminine wear in China and the Ottoman Empire where Turkey now is. And in other places too; it was only in Europe that it was associated with men. But before then, everyone wore a skirt-like dress or gown; male and female. Even in the time of the Old Testament, men wore clothes that were like skirts or gowns. As a matter of fact, the words used in Deut.22:5 for men and women dress, are different words! “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.” That “which pertains to a man” is the Hebrew word “ kelee” while “woman’s garment” is “simlaw”. “Kelee” refers to armour, instrument, weapon, etc; while “simlaw” simply refers to a cover, cloth, raiment.
I believe the point made in Deuteronomy 22:5 was to prevent a confusion of gender and the cross-dressing that is common among homosexuals. (Homosexuals like to try to appear like what they act like. E.g. in gay clubs and bars or relationships, one man usually tends to act like a woman with the other man so he will dress up like a woman. It is called transvestism. Women also do it). My opinion, based on what I believe to be the “spirit of the law”, is that God knew that since the nations that he was moving the Israelites into practiced things like this, His people would also be tempted to do the same so he wished to prevent it and warned them not to do any such thing. What I mean by the spirit of the law may be seen by looking at 1 Cor. 9:9-10. Then see Dt.25:4 where the law was given. Now the main point of that law in Deut. was being revealed here by the Spirit to be referring to ministers! The ox there referred to the labouring minister (oxen represent hard work) who was to find his sustenance in his vineyard. That was the spirit of that law. Looking at Dt.22:9-11 also would make no sense if you don’t see the spirit or real intention of why God gave it.
The law was a shadow of things to come. The real substance is revealed under the New Covenant/Testament. People miss the point of trousers because they miss the spirit of the law. Apart from that, ignorance also contributes because if trousers are the cultural dressing of women in some parts of the world, why do we call it men’s wear? Some say it is not “our” culture here in Nigeria. The problem with that argument is, neither is the shirt or blouse or skirt or trousers that we all wear! The cultures of the world are all mixed up! Today we dress like the English, Indians, Chinese, Russians, Thai, Scottish, etc,. We speak their languages, watch their programmes, read their books, etc.
Some clear scriptures on dressing are found in 1Timothy 2:9-10 (Paul), 1 Peter 3:1-5 (Peter), Isaiah 3:16-24 (Isaiah). You have at least 3 witnesses in these three men. Between them and other scripture like Exodus 3:22, Genesis 24:22, 30, 53 and Hosea 2:13 (read them carefully first!) we can come to certain obvious conclusions:
1. The God who made gold, silver, and clothes, does not hate beautiful things on His people. He loves beauty. Just look around you at nature in its most pristine (untampered-with) state and you’ll see His love for beauty in everything from the sunrise and sunset to the birds, flowers, animals, etc,. Man was made to be like God and will naturally like beauty also but satan’s work is to destroy Gods work so if he can’t remove man’s love for beauty completely, he tries to twist and pervert it be redefining it. And he mostly twists it by making us use it out of time or context.(Rev.4:11; Eccl.3:11) *E.g. why would someone scrape off a perfectly shaped eyebrow and draw in one instead? I mean naturally well shaped eyebrows. Or why would naturally lovely and red lips be covered with a grey unnatural looking lipstick? If the lips are discoloured or colourless, by all means redden it-no problem. But I mean, what of when God made it nice and reddish already? If you are already fair as an albino, do you use bleaching cream again? Or does someone that has paid school fees, pay a second time? We should only do what we need to. Make up was often used by older women as their beauty faded, so they “made up” for the loss. Most young women hardly need a thing because they are at the zenith of their beauty but they just follow the crowd and the world.

2. God directed or allowed His people to take and use gold, silver, and clothes. (Ex.3:21-22)

3. He gets offended when those things become an idol (Ex. 32:2-4; Gen. 35:2, 4; Isa 3:16-24; Hosea. 2:13) and so He takes it and destroys it while punishing His people for idolatry. [We are not to use what He gives us to please ourselves but rather as He pleases! Moses was up on the mountain getting instructions for how to build the dwelling place of God while the carnal people down there where using the temple material for their own pleasure. This is wrong but sadly what we do.] (What are we to do with idols? Get rid of them. Read the passages again.)

4. God wants us to use the gold, etc, to build HIM a (glorious house/temple/dwelling place. (Ex. 35:4-22) It is not for US AND OUR SELFISH INCLINATION TO USE ALL WE CAN ON OURSELVES! [Let me explain this a bit: the money and wealth that gold and stuff represent, is to be used to bring people into His house i.e. the church. WE are the temple (not one person but all of us together) and as we each bring of our substance and gifts, we ensure that God’s kingdom is established in the earth.]

5. Clothes were made for a covering. The ornamental, decorative part of clothes is therefore to be of secondary, not primary, consideration. The first (covering) is more important than the second (ornament). The things that we use to cover ourselves and decorate ourselves are to be used modestly and always in an effort to please God. And we must remember that the Old Testament contained the shadow of what was to come. We must understand the spirit of what was being said! Today our focus should be on putting gold and silver (Ps.19:7-10; Ps.12:6) on our spirits and our children’s spirits! THE WORD OF GOD is the treasure. Prov. 2:1-6; 3:13-15, 22. Where a man’s treasure is, there also will his heart be.(Lk.12:34) Is the word of God our greatest pursuit or is it money and how we appear to people? Many would not dress the way they do if not that they are trying to impress others. We should stay clean and pleasant but not in opposition to God’s word.
Back to clothes specifically. This is a greater problem for ladies because of the fact that beauty is a bigger thing for them. (That is why Paul, after speaking to the men in 1 Tim.2:8, now spoke to the women in verse 9.) There are other reasons too which we may discuss another day. But a simple rule in deciding what you may or may not wear as a Christian is: if it exposes what should be covered, don’t wear it. A low neckline or loosened buttons usually do nothing other than expose some part of the breast. A short skirt exposes the thighs when walking and exposes more than that when sitting while short blouses expose the stomach, back or underwear. A see-through dress shows the underwear of its wearer and a tight cloth whether blouse, (e.g. a body hug), skirt (e.g.Lycra material), trousers (including tight skirt suit pants!) or dress, expose the shape and figure so much sometimes it just appears that they are naked with skin the colour of the cloth. And exposed shoulders or backs (depending on how much material is missing) show a lot bare flesh.

In some countries of the world, a lady may wear nothing at all under their blouse. In others, they wear only underwear and walk on the streets. Some go without a top(blouse) if they choose e.g. a city in Canada passed a law permitting that. Sometimes many wear nothing at all (male and female) and do parades or bike races in thousands! (e.g. in England). Why should we note all this? Because it can happen here too since all those people were once like us. I thank God we have not totally arrived there yet but we soon will if the ladies of the church do not change! Our difference is a rebuke to the world but when we are just like them, then they feel no shame at all.

The question is, why should Christians act like this at all? The world does it to appear sexy and seductive to men. The fashion designers of this world say this openly. Are Christian girls also supposed to do that? Are “sisters” supposed to seduce their “brothers” or the other men than their husbands? With their husbands alone may women act as they please. Dress crazily for him (in your bedroom!). But for the rest of the world, we should maintain the attitude of royalty. We are children of the Great King; we ought to have a dignity that distinguishes us in all things including dressing!

The eyes are one of the senses of the human being just like our sense of smell or touch. When we smell something tasty, depending on just how hungry (or greedy!) we are, our salivary glands react. When we touch something, our nerves endings give us some message e.g. “hot-stay away”, “soft-rub fingers across” or whatever; and we now act on that message. When men’s eyes see seductively dressed women, their brain tells them something too! (Except they are blind!) Now, I know that what they do with what their eyes tell them is a function of how “hungry” or “greedy” they are, but, there is some reaction. Some turn away, others look hard i.e. some move on away from the “smell” of “food” while others plan on taking a “bite” as soon as possible. If I were talking to a man, I would advise him accordingly on how to save himself because we can overcome in all things. But I’m speaking to a lady.
A man may see a seductively dressed Christian girl in the day and go rape someone at night when his lust is full grown and the opportunity exists to “take a bite”. I would not for a second want to be the girl he saw during the day that kick-started him! But the truth is that, these are how things happen sometimes.
Child of God, do you know what it means to be a stumbling block? That illustration is a perfect example. An acquaintance once told me how that when he got born again and joined the church, he met all the enemies he ran from especially in the way the women dressed and the temptation it presented to him. He would therefore have to constantly look away or even change seats. Sadly, at the time he was saying this, obviously he had fallen away from the faith (possibly due to that very issue!)
Let 1 Corinthians 13 be our motto. Verse 4 says in the Amplified Version “Love endures long and is…kind; love never is envious nor boils over with jealousy, is not boastful or vainglorious, [color=#990000]does not display itself haughtily[/b].” We don’t enjoy it when people show off their wealth, or educational achievements or ability to speak. Neither should we flaunt our God given beauty. Just appreciate God for whatever you have, keep it low key, and use it to bless others. And God will bless you.

Image123:
deuteronomy 22.5.
i want to ask everyone, the first trousers, when was it worn and what gender did it belong to?

I'll tell u wat ! But first answer dis, who wore d first dress or skirts ? In d bible men and women wore robes , wome robes had different designs but were all robes !
Then d Roman soldiers wore skirt, n from den till today it is d national attire of Scotland n some other countries to wear skirts! So y is wearing skirt not sin ? Since it was men who first wore skirts. N same with d trousers please! Men also wore it first! But female trousers have different designs. D bible says a woman shouldn't wear wat partaineth to a man ! Okay how about people who wear their husband' s tee shirt sometimes at home for whatever reason, u don't tink dat as sin. U tink about trousers! But dat shirt pertains to dat man , therefore it is a sin ! Please read d bible n understand n not just read n look at d words ! If u put on ur brothers shirt, or singlet , or shoes , its sin ! There pertain to a man n not a woman. So many born again christians commit dat very sin . N wul b pointing fingers at females who wear trousers. Remove d beam in ur eye before removing d moth in ur brothers eyes. Dats d words of our lord !

MrAnony1:


Sorry but I don't agree with you. I don't believe that as a Christian I should spend my life worrying over what might be "occultic" or not.
Since I am a Christian, the power of God that raised Jesus from the dead dwells in me. Now why should I be afraid of little demons in handkerchiefs or whatever have you?

If a lady wants to wear a trouser, let her wear it there is no sin in her trousers. Men will lust after anything including a woman dressed in a niqab. Women also will lust after men in suits, should men not wear suits? The sin is lust and not the clothing.

imagine the wife of ur general overseer in trousers and preaching on the alter.think on these brethren

jmoore:


Don't you know the answer?

Which type was given to Adam and Eve by God?

The early form of dressing are skirts and gowns.Both worn by man and woman


The question is "is it a sin?" How can God judge by mere appearance? He will also judge those who ate some forbidden animals in Deuteronomy ?

pause 4 a minute and check the spirit that is countering the bible verses.Bro how would you feel if you see the wives of ur Go in trouses.Actually many doesnt want to hear the truth and some find it difficult to digest it because the truth has a bitter recipe.Whether you agree to the truth or not,that doesnt change the truth.me seeing ladies in trousers doesnt make me comfortable and i cant spend long hours with such.An heavenly minded xtian who cannot give up anything for Christs sake has made the thing his or her God.

Bosch10:
pause 4 a minute and check the spirit that is countering the bible verses.Bro how would you feel if you see the wives of ur Go in trouses.Actually many doesnt want to hear the truth and some find it difficult to digest it because the truth has a bitter recipe.Whether you agree to the truth or not,that doesnt change the truth.me seeing ladies in trousers doesnt make me comfortable and i cant spend long hours with such.An heavenly minded xtian who cannot give up anything for Christs sake has made the thing his or her God.

Did Adam wear trousers? Did Jesus wear trousers? Where is trouser written in the bible?

Nawa!!!

There are different types of trousers and there are different types of skirts. Since some of you think skirt is for women only, will you be comfortable if the wife of your GO wears miniskirt while preaching?

jmoore:


Did Adam wear trousers? Did Jesus wear trousers? Where is trouser written in the bible?

Nawa!!!

There are different types of trousers and there are different types of skirts. Since some of you think skirt is for women only, will you be comfortable if the wife of your GO wears miniskirt while preaching?

well,u might not see trousers in the bible,but simple xtian instincts wil make u to understand that it is nt proper.I am yet to see any true prophetess or born again sista in trousers.its also a no go area for me.the spirit of God in me hates it

Bosch10:
well,u might not see trousers in the bible,but simple xtian instincts wil make u to understand that it is nt proper.I am yet to see any true prophetess or born again sista in trousers.its also a no go area for me.the spirit of God in me hates it

spirit of God in you?

Bosch10:
I went to a brothel today bt the ashewo dey complain say i dont know how to bleep.She complimented my dick as huge,bt she says that i dont know how to use it.It has become 2 to 3 ashewos who have been saying that.moreso i found out that having sex is not as easy as people think.i feel pains all over my body and i feel so tired and sex becomes boring to me.if i dont do anything to it,i know that my future wife will have cause to complain.pls how do they bleep,help a brother

did you type that in sexuality section today?