Did Paul and Jesus say you could Crossdress?

[Shermana]

Many times it is stated by those who claim to be Christians that the Law was done away with by Paul and Jesus (regardless of the fact that the Jerusalem Church was apparently still very much pro-Law even by Acts 21), or that the only commandments that are binding are those repeated in the canonized version of the NT manuscripts.

The rules against sexual immorality stated by Paul do NOT mention cross dressing. It may mention "Effeminacy" as something to avoid, but there are plenty of Butch Trannies, so they might not be covered by that. And women who convincingly look like men would definitely not either.

So where does this put crossdressing for the Antinomian Christian? Are Christians now allowed to go all out Tranny style? If not, please provide your scriptural justification and do not just limit it to some appeal to "moral law", please provide the direct basis of your belief on why Christians are not allowed to cross dress. Otherwise, feel free to add that you believe the NT justifies and has no condemnation towards drag.

Note: This thread is not meant to turn into the umpteenth debate on whether the Law still applies for Christians in general, of which we have several threads for that specific discussion, this is about a SPECIFIC issue of that theological basis which says the Law is completely undone or only applicable to laws that are specifically mentioned in the NT.

 

[Awoon]

Many times it is stated by those who claim to be Christians that the Law was done away with by Paul and Jesus (regardless of the fact that the Jerusalem Church was apparently still very much pro-Law even by Acts 21), or that the only commandments that are binding are those repeated in the canonized version of the NT manuscripts.

The rules against sexual immorality stated by Paul do NOT mention cross dressing. It may mention "Effeminacy" as something to avoid, but there are plenty of Butch Trannies, so they might not be covered by that. And women who convincingly look like men would definitely not either.

So where does this put crossdressing for the Antinomian Christian? Are Christians now allowed to go all out Tranny style? If not, please provide your scriptural justification and do not just limit it to some appeal to "moral law", please provide the direct basis of your belief on why Christians are not allowed to cross dress. Otherwise, feel free to add that you believe the NT justifies and has no condemnation towards drag.

Note: This thread is not meant to turn into the umpteenth debate on whether the Law still applies for Christians in general, of which we have several threads for that specific discussion, this is about a SPECIFIC issue of that theological basis which says the Law is completely undone or only applicable to laws that are specifically mentioned in the NT.

This outa be fun.opcorn:

 

[Pegg]

Many times it is stated by those who claim to be Christians that the Law was done away with by Paul and Jesus (regardless of the fact that the Jerusalem Church was apparently still very much pro-Law even by Acts 21), or that the only commandments that are binding are those repeated in the canonized version of the NT manuscripts.

The rules against sexual immorality stated by Paul do NOT mention cross dressing. It may mention "Effeminacy" as something to avoid, but there are plenty of Butch Trannies, so they might not be covered by that. And women who convincingly look like men would definitely not either.

So where does this put crossdressing for the Antinomian Christian? Are Christians now allowed to go all out Tranny style? If not, please provide your scriptural justification and do not just limit it to some appeal to "moral law", please provide the direct basis of your belief on why Christians are not allowed to cross dress. Otherwise, feel free to add that you believe the NT justifies and has no condemnation towards drag.

Note: This thread is not meant to turn into the umpteenth debate on whether the Law still applies for Christians in general, of which we have several threads for that specific discussion, this is about a SPECIFIC issue of that theological basis which says the Law is completely undone or only applicable to laws that are specifically mentioned in the NT.

did you not read:

1Tim2:9*Likewise I desire the women to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb, 10*but in the way that befits women professing to reverence God

OR 1Peter 3:3 And do not let YOUR adornment be that of the external braiding of the hair and of the putting on of gold ornaments or the wearing of outer garments, 4*but let it be the secret person of the heart in the incorruptible [apparel] of the quiet and mild spirit, which is of great value in the eyes of God.

Paul uses the expression “with soundness of mind,” In the original Greek, it denotes being temperate and self-controlled. Other Bible translations render this word as “discreetly,” “sensibly,” “refined,” or “with self-restraint.”

This is a principle which extends far beyond a law stating that a man must not wear a dress. Some cultures (including isreal) did wear 'dresses'. Men wore skirts would be viewed as 'womens' clothing by us.

So the principle is more powerful then the law in this case.

 

[Shermana]

Those verses in no way whatsoever forbid cross dressing for men, or women. At best Peter says to not wear too many accessories! Or at least expensive ones.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Pegg]

Those verses in no way whatsoever forbid cross dressing for men, or women. At best Peter says to not wear too many accessories! Or at least expensive ones.

Thanks for playing.

Actually they do.

Would it be showing a 'sound mind' to cross dress? No. Is it discreet? No. would it be showing self-restraint? No.

Thats what makes principles more powerful then laws. A law applies to a specific circumstance, a principle applies across the board.

Welcome to the new covenant!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This is like asking if they prohibited looking at pornographic videos or using twitter. Personally, I believe Jesus did forbid using twitter as well as all iCult products (iPhones, iPads, iMacs, iGods, etc.), but scriptural support for this is as poor as it is for the idea that either Paul or Jesus said anything about "Butch Trannies".

 

[Shermana]

This is like asking if they prohibited looking at pornographic videos or using twitter. Personally, I believe Jesus did forbid using twitter as well as all iCult products (iPhones, iPads, iMacs, iGods, etc.), but scriptural support for this is as poor as it is for the idea that either Paul or Jesus said anything about "Butch Trannies".

I suppose I could also ask if they forbid looking at Japanese-style woodblocks. Or those horrible Grecian urns.

Hey, "Butch Trannies" are definitely not "Effeminate" now are they!

 

[Shermana]

Actually they do.

Would it be showing a 'sound mind' to cross dress? No. Is it discreet? No. would it be showing self-restraint? No.

Thats what makes principles more powerful then laws. A law applies to a specific circumstance, a principle applies across the board.

Welcome to the new covenant!

Who are you to say that a "Sound Mind" would not cross-dress exactly? I may agree, but how do you justify that position objectively speaking? What about guys who prefer panties for the ahem...comfort?

Is it sound mind to wear ugly crocs as well? Is it sound mind to wear tight leather?

So apparently, the "New Covenant" means "Whatever we say it is" regardless if the scripture directly says it.

 

[Kalidas]

Actually they do.

Would it be showing a 'sound mind' to cross dress? No. Is it discreet? No. would it be showing self-restraint? No.

Thats what makes principles more powerful then laws. A law applies to a specific circumstance, a principle applies across the board.

Welcome to the new covenant!

Pegg we meet again! lol
Why is cross dressing not done by people of sound mind? Why is it in discreet? Why is it not showing self restraint? Before Adam and Eve committed the first sit on eating the apple they wore NO CLOTHES. Which would imply that men wearing certain clothes and women wearing other clothes is not a natural creation of God or nature. But actually a creation of society. So it is not against sound mind, discretion, or a restraint just against societal norms.

 

[Pegg]

Who are you to say that a "Sound Mind" would not cross-dress exactly? I may agree, but how do you justify that position objectively speaking? What about guys who prefer panties for the ahem...comfort?

Is it sound mind to wear ugly crocs as well? Is it sound mind to wear tight leather?

So apparently, the "New Covenant" means "Whatever we say it is" regardless if the scripture directly says it.

Do you realise that a 'dress' is not what the mosaic law is even talking about?

What does Genesis say that God clothed Adam in? "long garments' which in our language is actually a 'dress'. God didnt dress Adam in long pants and a jacket.


Deuteronomy 22:5 (Da) reads: “There shall not be a man’s apparel on a woman, neither shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever doeth so is an abomination to Jehovah thy God.”


What you are reading in the mosaic law is not a warning about fashions suitable to a man or woman. In those days, men were wearing 'dresses' and 'skirts'.... remember the scripture "Ten men will take hold of the skirt of a jew..."


So if its not about the length or style of your garment, what do you think its really about?

 

[Shermana]

Ummm, how is that a rebuttal to anything I said?

 

[Pegg]

Pegg we meet again! lol
Why is cross dressing not done by people of sound mind? Why is it in discreet? Why is it not showing self restraint? Before Adam and Eve committed the first sit on eating the apple they wore NO CLOTHES. Which would imply that men wearing certain clothes and women wearing other clothes is not a natural creation of God or nature. But actually a creation of society. So it is not against sound mind, discretion, or a restraint just against societal norms.

keep watching, i'm getting to it... just waiting for Shermana to reply

 

[Pegg]

Ummm, how is that a rebuttal to anything I said?

shermana, you are asking the question about the law on dress and equating it to clothing specifically


but why would a man try to appear like a woman by dressing himself like a woman? or why would a woman try to appear like a man?


men and women both wore dresses when this law was given.... Moses would have been wearing a dress when he put it in writing....what does that indicate to you???

 

[Kalidas]

keep watching, i'm getting to it... just waiting for Shermana to reply

*sin of eating the apple* sorry auto correct

 

[Shermana]

shermana, you are asking the question about the law on dress and equating it to clothing specifically


but why would a man try to appear like a woman by dressing himself like a woman? or why would a woman try to appear like a man?

Maybe deep down inside they feel like a woman and want to get in touch with their inner femininity. Maybe they are looking to attract men who are into other men, but that would only be a (NT scripturally emphasized) sin if they actually engaged in such debauchery.

men and women both wore dresses when this law was given.... Moses would have been wearing a dress when he put it in writing....what does that indicate to you??

It indicates to me that I nowhere mentioned the concept of a "Dress" in terms of modern usage, it would only be in reference to clear-cut clothes that distinguish between a man and a woman like blouses.

 

[Pegg]

*sin of eating the apple* sorry auto correct

there is no sin in eating an apple or any other fruit. Adam and Eves sin wasnt' eating the fruit


it was disobeying the order of their creator.

 

[Kalidas]

Do you realise that a 'dress' is not what the mosaic law is even talking about?

What does Genesis say that God clothed Adam in? "long garments' which in our language is actually a 'dress'. God didnt dress Adam in long pants and a jacket.


Deuteronomy 22:5 (Da) reads: “There shall not be a man’s apparel on a woman, neither shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever doeth so is an abomination to Jehovah thy God.”


What you are reading in the mosaic law is not a warning about fashions suitable to a man or woman. In those days, men were wearing 'dresses' and 'skirts'.... remember the scripture "Ten men will take hold of the skirt of a jew..."


So if its not about the length or style of your garment, what do you think its really about?

I think I see what you are getting at (FYI I disagree but then again I am not a christian anymore). It's not about the clothing for sure but whether people are acting in "accordance" with their gender. IE is this man or woman sleeping with the opposite sex, are they acting in a way suitable for their gender etc etc etc. Basically is this man acting like a man or a woman?

 

[Kalidas]

there is no sin in eating an apple or any other fruit. Adam and Eves sin wasnt' eating the fruit


it was disobeying the order of their creator.

I know that. I was just talking about that particular action.

 

[Pegg]

Maybe deep down inside they feel like a woman and want to get in touch with their inner femininity. Maybe they are looking to attract men who are into other men, but that would only be a (NT scripturally emphasized) sin if they actually engaged in such debauchery.

Ah, now you thinking beyond the law. That wasnt so hard was it?

The principle behind the law is what you have to search for. In this case, a man or woman who tries to imitate the opposite sex is doing so for improper deviate purposes. A man who has long hair like a woman’s or dressed in women’s clothing would certainly appear effeminate and open to propositions from men for unnatural sexual encounters.

So if we are to use soundness of mind, we would dress in a way that doesnt cause such distractions....we wouldnt try to appeal to someones sexual desire in the way we present ourselves. If we are a man, we would want to present ourselves in a dignified masculine form, and a women would show self-restraint so as to not appear 'available' or appear to be trying to look masculine.

The principle behind that law is 'soundness of mind' and someone who is 'discreet' and 'modest'

 

[Pegg]

I know that. I was just talking about that particular action.

ok.

just as there are principles behind the mosiac laws, there are also principles behind every law God has ever given. Its so important to search for the principle and live by the principle. And if we live by the principle, we could never break the law. Hence why christians do not need to adhere to the mosaic laws...living by principle sets us free from specific laws.


imagine if we thought it was a sin to eat apples! No one would eat them, right?

Thats why christianity is big on principle as opposed to law.