Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

PRax you don't listen righteousness is NOT COVENANT BOUND but exists beyond covenants. Of course a new covenant is a NEW covenant. LOL. The principles are the same and exist not because it is a covenant but natural law of existance which is the result of God's expression and order given creation. sheeesh

I didn't say righteousness is covenant bound.

Righteousness only comes by Jesus Christ...sheeesh

uhhh so Deut 22:5 is not applicable for today?

uhhh, is it taught in the New Covenant or is it just the Law of Moses?

yes and it is not teaching on the subject exaclty like Deut 22:5.

Is it taught in the NT? Is distinction of gender taught? Explicit or Implicit?

Didactic can be used according to the context given. People like James White and others use this term just like I did in context of it being taught directly by his word usage with clear reference.

Didactic means "teaching" or intended for teaching. It's irrelevant whether it's explicit or implicit.

Totally agree and James White argued didactic teaching which was referenced as direct by his usage as a doctrine to be known clearly taught and Bernard argued implied teaching.

"didactic teaching" is sort of an oxymoron. Paul says all scriptures is given for teaching. All scripture is didactic. What the teach is another issue.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I didn't say righteousness is covenant bound.

Righteousness only comes by Jesus Christ...sheeesh

define meaning of righeousness. righteousness can mean many things depending on how it is worded. The law was righteousness as it is God expressed as is the new law by a new medium now expressed. God's Word is righteousness and law as it is order and structure to us. The covenant of the OT/Mosaic cannot be righteousness to us now because it is null and void as a administration of agreement. The New covenant of administration of agreement is by the author/source which is Jesus christ. righteousness of covenant vs righteousness of knowledge. Then you get into justice done toward a person because of faith which is another aspect of righteousness which is related.

uhhh, is it taught in the New Covenant or is it just the Law of Moses?

Prax is it for today or not.

Is it taught in the NT? Is distinction of gender taught? Explicit or Implicit?

concerning only clothing? might be afraid someone might say... how dare you "pick up" a law. shivers.... As if that is picking up a law. lol

Didactic means "teaching" or intended for teaching. It's irrelevant whether it's explicit or implicit.

again people use it in certain ways and you know that.

"didactic teaching" is sort of an oxymoron. Paul says all scriptures is given for teaching. All scripture is didactic. What the teach is another issue.

that was supposed to have been didactic/teaching

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

that was supposed to have been didactic/teaching

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

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

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

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

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

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

We are under a New Covenant.

yep

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

Never said we are under teh seat of moses and the administration of the Mosaic covenant.

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

true but the OT is constantly what is referenced. All Scripture is given. The authors of the NT did not ignore the writings of the OT. They used them.

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

yes..

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

leading is a varying word depending on how you use it. It does help bring them to Christ. It also contains more than that.

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

depending on the topic yes. My point was simple and it is concerning the text.
Many simply say... you can't use any OT scripture as examples of righteousness. You are picking up the law blah blah blah. If you are not doing that... fine. TO say what they say though when KNOWING scripture consistently teaches this in both covenants is simply incorrect as the whole shows truth. Paul and all the other Apostles did not have to rewrite everything and point to what is SIN as the law pointed to it as a base understanding. They did not have to rewrite it as it was taught everywhere among the Jews. So when you point to the law and as Paul said without the law I would not have KNOWN sin and then the redemption points to Christ from the exposed sin AND also WEAKNESS of man.... do you look at the OT and say hmmm yep Deut 22:5 exposed the wrong? do I have to say hmm well I can only find the wrong in the NT?