If verse 5 will send you to hell so will verse 11

[Sam]

Neither Deut 22:5, nor Deut 22:11, nor any of the rest of the 613 commandments of the Law will send me to hell. I am under a New Covenant. The Old Covenant/Testament has no authority over me.

Originally Posted by Sam

Neither Deut 22:5, nor Deut 22:11, nor any of the rest of the 613 commandments of the Law will send me to hell. I am under a New Covenant. The Old Covenant/Testament has no authority over me.

Precisely why the only "traditional Holiness standard" that I can fully support would be the hair issue because we find it being taught in the New Testament.... and Paul causing it to transcend any particular culture by saying "it was not so from the beginning"

[clgustaveson]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Precisely why the only "traditional Holiness standard" that I can fully support would be the hair issue because we find it being taught in the New Testament.... and Paul causing it to transcend any particular culture by saying "it was not so from the beginning"

I love this place

[Steve Epley]

Dr.V.I thought you believed in God's last day prophet Elijah or better known as William Branham he taught against pants on women.

But to your question it does NOT say wearing woolen and linen together is an abomination unto God.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Dr.V.I thought you believed in God's last day prophet Elijah or better known as William Branham he taught against pants on women.

But to your question it does NOT say wearing woolen and linen together is an abomination unto God.

Elder.. are you espousing that now those things that are merely commandments do not equal to abominations? They are lesser sins?

For the record my wife does not nor will she ever wear pants.. thats not my motivation.... we choose to keep with the traditions of the church on this matter.... but I believe the point is valid...... how can we cherry pick verse 5 and make it a modern commandment....

We know that verse 5 is not speaking of pants as pants did not exist until modern times for neither man nor woman.....

and then ignore verse 11

[Neubill]

First page! (Sorry, that's what I do when I know I got on the first page of a thread that's sure to have 100 replies or more.)

Believe it or not, this is not only a controversial subject among Christians, it is an equally controversial issue in the Jewish community.

While Reform, Conservative, and Modern Orthodox Jews are accepting of pants on ladies, the Ultra-Orthodox are not. They cite two reasons (maybe more that I'm not aware of...) for ladies refraining from wearing pants:

1. According to the rabbis, the pants have their history traced back to the High Priest of Israel, who was commanded to wear breeches to cover his thigh(s) so that he would not reveal nakedness in the sight of ADONAI.
2. Pants are immodest, as they conform to and visually enhance the figure more than dresses and skirts.

Regarding the mixing of fabrics, people are amazed when I tell them that Kosher is not just food, but includes clothes as well. This is why.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Neubill

First page! (Sorry, that's what I do when I know I got on the first page of a thread that's sure to have 100 replies or more.)

Believe it or not, this is not only a controversial subject among Christians, it is an equally controversial issue in the Jewish community.

While Reform, Conservative, and Modern Orthodox Jews are accepting of pants on ladies, the Ultra-Orthodox are not. They cite two reasons (maybe more that I'm not aware of...) for ladies refraining from wearing pants:

1. According to the rabbis, the pants have their history traced back to the High Priest of Israel, who was commanded to wear breeches to cover his thigh(s) so that he would not reveal nakedness in the sight of ADONAI.
2. Pants are immodest, as they conform to and visually enhance the figure more than dresses and skirts.

Regarding the mixing of fabrics, people are amazed when I tell them that Kosher is not just food, but includes clothes as well. This is why.

My dear Jewish brother.....

In my study of Judaism and the Law, I have found the the Jews do NOT believe that that keeping of the 613 mitzvot is a requirement to enter the life hereafter unless a specific law mentions that. Is it not correct that the Jews believe that anyone who keeps the Noahic covenant (7 laws of Noah) will be ushered into the life hereafter?

I well understand the discussion and debate over each of the 613 mitzvot throughout the ages as to how each is to be observed, but Jews, from what I have read, do not believe that the keeping of the law will get them to heaven.

[Brad Murphy]

Originally Posted by Neubill

First page! (Sorry, that's what I do when I know I got on the first page of a thread that's sure to have 100 replies or more.)

Believe it or not, this is not only a controversial subject among Christians, it is an equally controversial issue in the Jewish community.

While Reform, Conservative, and Modern Orthodox Jews are accepting of pants on ladies, the Ultra-Orthodox are not. They cite two reasons (maybe more that I'm not aware of...) for ladies refraining from wearing pants:

1. According to the rabbis, the pants have their history traced back to the High Priest of Israel, who was commanded to wear breeches to cover his thigh(s) so that he would not reveal nakedness in the sight of ADONAI.
2. Pants are immodest, as they conform to and visually enhance the figure more than dresses and skirts.

Regarding the mixing of fabrics, people are amazed when I tell them that Kosher is not just food, but includes clothes as well. This is why.

So item 1 determines that pants are more modest for men, because they will not reveal nakedness... and item 2 says that pants are immodest.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Elder.. are you espousing that now those things that are merely commandments do not equal to abominations? They are lesser sins?

For the record my wife does not nor will she ever wear pants.. thats not my motivation.... we choose to keep with the traditions of the church on this matter.... but I believe the point is valid...... how can we cherry pick verse 5 and make it a modern commandment....

We know that verse 5 is not speaking of pants as pants did not exist until modern times for neither man nor woman.....

and then ignore verse 11

No one is ignoring verse 11 it was and edict for the Jewish folks teaching them separation however in verse 5 it clearly states it is an abomination UNTO God. Any abomination UNTO God in the OT is an abomination today. There were abominations unto THEM the Jews which are not applicable but anything God hates he still hates.

[Steve Epley]

I could care less what Patterson says or the Pope or Reverend Right or Pastor Manning they all are false prophets who cares.?