Split: Your Views... Women Wearing Pants

[nebula]

Before sin took place in the garden, God said he created woman to be a help meet to her husband.  That is her purpose.  After the fall, God placed a curse on the man and the woman.  The woman was to have pain in child bearing and to be ruled over by her husband.  It is not like he wasn't in charge from the start, as she is his help meet, but until the sin took place, there was unity.  Now that sin entered into the world, strife and disagreement would come into the marriage, and the husband was placed in charge over his wife.  He was to rule over her.  That is the extent of her curse.  She was not given the responsibility to earn a living by the sweat of her face.  That was the man's curse alone.  That is God's order.  Anything else is altering God's order.

 

Didn't Jesus die and rise in order to set us free from the curse? Why do you insist we keep living under the rule of the curse?

[Guest man]

 

Wonder what the talking donkey would say????

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Butero]

 

A lot of people try to use the mixed fabric argument, but it is not valid.  There are some laws that were in place for Israel as a sign of separation, and that was the case with the one about mixed fabrics In a garment.  The law in Deuteronomy 22:5 is a moral law, and it still remains.  I would be more likely to consider that we should stop wearing garments of mixed fabrics, than to consider that it is right for women to wear pants. 

 

Deut 22:1-12

You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother. ² And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. ³ You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment; with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you must not hide yourself.

⁴ “You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again.

⁵ “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

⁶ “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; ⁷ you shall surely let the mother go, and take the young for yourself, that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days.

⁸ “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.

⁹ “You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.

¹⁰ “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.

¹¹ “You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.

¹² “You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself.

 

 

Interesting that vs. 5 is the only verse in this list you hold as a moral law that still remains today.

 

 

In any event, the real issue is what one deems to be "man's clothes" and "women's clothes." The Bible does not define what clothes belong to men and what clothes belong to women.

 

But it is funny how pants seem to be the only "anything" that "pertaineth to a man" that women are not allowed to wear. I recall attending a Christian concert in Pennsylvania, and I saw a young Mennonite female in the crowd. She wore her hair up in the Mennonite "cap", a skirt, socks, tennis shoes, and a concert t-shirt. I had to laugh!

 

First of all, I didn't look through the list to try to see what might or might not be a moral law?  I don't know where you got that from?   Verses 9 through 12 are laws of separation.  Verse 8 would still apply if we still designed a roof as they did back then and people actually hung out on the top of people's homes.  I wouldn't really want to violate verses 1 through 7.  I have never encountered a neighbor losing his ox or donkey, but I would feel like it would be the right thing to do to help if that happened.  I have returned a dog that got loose from my neighbor.  The laws of separation involve things that are done to simply show a distinction between the Jewish people and their neighbors.  They are symbolic gestures, like not mixing two different kinds of fabric in a single garment. 

 

As for the Mennonite girl, I am not sure that is typical of what they usually wear?  Just because you saw one woman with a head covering like Mennonite women traditionally wear, that doesn't necessarily mean she was Mennonite.  There are a lot of groups where the women wear head coverings.  I travel through Mennonite country a lot, in Indiana and Ohio, and can't recall ever seeing a true Mennonite lady dressed like that?  They all wear home made dresses.  If not for the head covering, that sounds typical of how some Independent Baptist ladies in my area might dress?  It may have been a Beachy Amish woman, as they are actually a cross between Baptist and Mennonite? 

[Guest Butero]

 

Before sin took place in the garden, God said he created woman to be a help meet to her husband.  That is her purpose.  After the fall, God placed a curse on the man and the woman.  The woman was to have pain in child bearing and to be ruled over by her husband.  It is not like he wasn't in charge from the start, as she is his help meet, but until the sin took place, there was unity.  Now that sin entered into the world, strife and disagreement would come into the marriage, and the husband was placed in charge over his wife.  He was to rule over her.  That is the extent of her curse.  She was not given the responsibility to earn a living by the sweat of her face.  That was the man's curse alone.  That is God's order.  Anything else is altering God's order.

 

Didn't Jesus die and rise in order to set us free from the curse? Why do you insist we keep living under the rule of the curse?

 

Last time I looked Nebula, women still have pain in child bearing, and men have to work by the sweat of their face.  We still have sickness and death.  If we were set free from the curse in that way, those things wouldn't happen, so your understanding of being free from the curse is wrong.  It is not that people are choosing to live under the rule of the curse.  It still continues.  The man was always the head of the woman, but because of the curse, you have disagreements, rather than unity.  That is why it was necessary to state that the man would rule over his wife.  Before the curse, Adam and Eve lived in the garden of Eden and had access to the tree of life.  Who wouldn't want to simply choose to be restored to that, but nobody has been.  I can't understand how anyone can seriously claim we are no longer under the curse? 

[TsukinoRei]

 

I have already addressed some of this.  It is all rather simple.  The law of Moses was comprised of three types of laws.  1  Laws of separation  2  Laws Concerning the order Of The Levitical Priesthood  3  Moral Laws. 

 

 

The mixed fabric law was one to show separation between Israel and the idol worshipping gentile nations, so it doesn't apply to us.  We were those gentiles but we are no longer unclean. 

 

The vision of Peter was not just about food.  I am glad you noticed that.  The reason why Israel was to abstain from certain foods was as a sign of separation.  Now that the gentiles were made clean by the blood of Jesus, they are no longer separate, but there is one body.  We are engrafted into the same spiritual tree with Israel, so the symbolism has changed.  Now all foods are clean.  That is why we are free to eat pork.

 

Circumcision was another sign of separation given to the Jews.  How do I know this?  This is rather simple too.  Have you ever noticed how many sins are mentioned in the NT, and it is said that those who commit them shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?  These are actually laws.  If the law was done away with, we could do anything we want and inherit God's Kingdom, because scripture says, "Where there is no law, there is no transgression."  The laws that apply today are those pertaining to God's standard of holiness.  It is not so much that part of the law was done away with, but some parts were only to take us to the cross.  We don't have the Levitical Priesthood in place anymore, as Christ's one time death paid the penalty for any sin we can commit.  Instead of sacrificing an animal, we simply confess our sins, and the blood of Jesus washes us clean. 

 

It would be like this.  I write a bill, and in this bill, there are temporary measures in place to get things started.  The bill passes, and is not repealed, but when a certain date rolls around, parts no longer apply, because there are long term things in place to keep the law going.  That is how this works. 

 

 

I'm sorry Butero.  I tried to give the thread a thorough read before I responded.  If I missed your answers to some of the above then it was not my intention to ask you to repeat yourself.

 

   So, your answer to the question: Given Deut 1-12 is all one list of laws, how do you decide which laws are applicable today and which ones are not?  Your answer is that if it is mentioned in the New Testament than it remains under the New Covenant, if I understand you correctly.   

 

What do you think it means when Paul writes that ALL THINGS are permissible?  

What does it mean when Titus says.

 

"pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure."

 

 

Why did he say ALL THINGS here again, rather than specify just circumcision here?  Why do you think is there no concise list in the New Testament of what laws still apply under the New Covenant?

 

Do you also believe that a woman should not speak in Church, and that a woman should not be permitted to teach?  Most Churches have mostly female Sunday School Teachers.  A growing number of Churches have female pastors and female worship leaders.  Most Churches have female board members.  Are all of these Churches failing in holiness standards by your conviction?

 

 

"...the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." 1 Timothy 2:11-15

 

 

 

Is slavery the ideal in the Godly home?  Was it wrong to abolish slavery in America?

 

 

 

"Wives, be subject to your husband, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord." Colossians 3:18-22

[Guest Butero]

 

 

I have already addressed some of this.  It is all rather simple.  The law of Moses was comprised of three types of laws.  1  Laws of separation  2  Laws Concerning the order Of The Levitical Priesthood  3  Moral Laws. 

 

 

The mixed fabric law was one to show separation between Israel and the idol worshipping gentile nations, so it doesn't apply to us.  We were those gentiles but we are no longer unclean. 

 

The vision of Peter was not just about food.  I am glad you noticed that.  The reason why Israel was to abstain from certain foods was as a sign of separation.  Now that the gentiles were made clean by the blood of Jesus, they are no longer separate, but there is one body.  We are engrafted into the same spiritual tree with Israel, so the symbolism has changed.  Now all foods are clean.  That is why we are free to eat pork.

 

Circumcision was another sign of separation given to the Jews.  How do I know this?  This is rather simple too.  Have you ever noticed how many sins are mentioned in the NT, and it is said that those who commit them shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?  These are actually laws.  If the law was done away with, we could do anything we want and inherit God's Kingdom, because scripture says, "Where there is no law, there is no transgression."  The laws that apply today are those pertaining to God's standard of holiness.  It is not so much that part of the law was done away with, but some parts were only to take us to the cross.  We don't have the Levitical Priesthood in place anymore, as Christ's one time death paid the penalty for any sin we can commit.  Instead of sacrificing an animal, we simply confess our sins, and the blood of Jesus washes us clean. 

 

It would be like this.  I write a bill, and in this bill, there are temporary measures in place to get things started.  The bill passes, and is not repealed, but when a certain date rolls around, parts no longer apply, because there are long term things in place to keep the law going.  That is how this works. 

 

 

I'm sorry Butero.  I tried to give the thread a thorough read before I responded.  If I missed your answers to some of the above then it was not my intention to ask you to repeat yourself.

 

   So, your answer to the question: Given Deut 1-12 is all one list of laws, how do you decide which laws are applicable today and which ones are not?  Your answer is that if it is mentioned in the New Testament than it remains under the New Covenant, if I understand you correctly.   

 

What do you think it means when Paul writes that ALL THINGS are permissible?  

What does it mean when Titus says.

 

"pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure."

 

 

Why did he say ALL THINGS here again, rather than specify just circumcision here?  Why do you think is there no concise list in the New Testament of what laws still apply under the New Covenant?

 

Do you also believe that a woman should not speak in Church, and that a woman should not be permitted to teach?  Most Churches have mostly female Sunday School Teachers.  A growing number of Churches have female pastors and female worship leaders.  Most Churches have female board members.  Are all of these Churches failing in holiness standards by your conviction?

 

 

"...the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." 1 Timothy 2:11-15

 

 

 

Is slavery the ideal in the Godly home?  Was it wrong to abolish slavery in America?

 

 

 

"Wives, be subject to your husband, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord." Colossians 3:18-22

 

My position is not that something has to be repeated in the NT to be valid.  I spent a great deal of time in the law, taking note of what types of laws there are, and why we are said to be no longer under law, but grace, but at the same time, we are told some sins will keep us out of God's Kingdom.  I saw patterns.  If you take the time, you can see the difference between a moral law and one that shows a separation between Israel and other nations.  They have no other logical reason for being there. 

 

You can actually do anything you wish, but there are consequences.  If Paul meant that literally, all things are ok in the sight of God, I could commit murder and be ok.  Thou Shalt Not Kill is part of the law of Moses.  We are capable of doing anything, but all things are not profitable.  Some things will do harm to us in this life, and some in the next life. 

 

We are not talking about human commands or Jewish myths.  We are talking about a command of God, and how it applies to us today?  It is interpreting God's laws, not making up new ones.

 

I am not saying that we only keep laws repeated in the NT.  You have to examine the individual laws to determine what is a moral law and what is a law of separation.  In the case of Deuteronomy 22:5 I do have the scripture in 1 Corinthians 6:9 dealing with an effeminate man, so that does add some weight but even without it, I can still clearly see this is a moral law, not a law of separation.

 

As to women teachers, this is a bit more complicated.  In the first passage you cited, it isn't speaking of women being quiet in the sense of putting tape on their mouth before entering the church.  We can see the meaning by the comment that if they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home.  This is speaking of women who were being disruptive in church asking questions while someone was giving a message or teaching.  In context, it has nothing to do with women preachers or teachers.  Your other scripture pertains to the authority in the home.  In other words, the woman is not to presume to dominate her husband by usurping his authority in the home, or to tell him how he is to do things.  She is not to teach him.  This isn't really speaking of preachers either in context.  There is no Biblical reason why a woman cannot be a teacher or preacher, but she is not allowed to be a Deacon or Bishop, as she can't meet the Biblical requirements for either office.  If the Pastor's job requires that person to act as a Bishop, a woman is not qualified.  She is not the "husband of one wife." 

 

Slavery in itself is not wrong.  It was actually permitted and regulated in the law of Moses.  It isn't required that any nation allow or forbid people to own slaves.  I have advocated allowing slavery if someone desires to sell themselves into slavery as they did in the OT as a means of helping to reduce homelessness.  It should be regulated, and amount to servitude for room and board.  What we are talking about in the home is not exactly the same thing.  It is a situation where you have one person over another in authority, but that is not the same thing as slavery, anymore than children are slaves to their parents.  Even if you want to look at it as slavery, as I said, I don't believe all forms of slavery are wrong, and advocate it in some instances if someone chooses to put themselves into slavery. 

 

I don't think these questions were asked already, but I hope that helps you?  If you have more questions down the road, feel free to ask.

[Qnts2]

 

Butero,

 

You have my curiosity.

 

Do you believe women should not cut their hair?

 

Are you familiar with the UPC?

Yes, I am familiar with the UPC.  The Bible simply says the woman should have long hair and the hair is given to her has a covering.  It doesn't specify that they can never cut their hair.  My biggest issues with the UPC is their denial of the trinity, and their belief that you aren't saved until you are baptized in the name of Jesus and speak in tongues.  I am more of a traditional Trinitarian Pentecostal.  The closest church I can give you that is close to my beliefs is Paw Creek Church in Charlotte N.C., and I don't agree with all their positions.  I do however download sermons from their church and listen to them while traveling.  Pastor Chambers has the same view I do on pants and hair length, but he actually is stronger on the pants issue than I am.  He has said he doesn't believe women that wear pants will go in the rapture, and I am more cautious than making that kind of judgment.  He refers to women that wear pants as having a "Jezebel Spirit."  I would be more inclined to call it a rebellious spirit, because Jezebel was a God hater and Baal worshipper.  I agree with him in principle, but am more cautious about terminology like that.   He does agree with people like Nebula on entertainment.  He is very strict across the board, and if his church was closer, I would probably attend it?  It is more than 70 miles from my home.  I visited it one time, and have sent them money on occasion. 

 

http://www.pawcreek.org

 

 

I looked at the site and read the statement of faith.

 

I couldn't help but compare the rules with those of Orthodox Judaism/Chasidic in the same areas.

 

A few differences are:

 

Women must wear dresses: Orthodox Judaism, with sleeves, Paw Creek, no mention of sleeves.

 

Womens hair: Chasidic Judaism, the hair must be covered when out in public because it is sensual, Paw Creek, hair must be long.

   That one is interesting because exposed hair is considered sensual in Judaism, so must be covered, but there is no length requirement while Paw Creek has what is considered a most sensual requirement.

 

Two laws which appears to be absent from Christian churches is one that is repeated over and over, thru the OT and into the NT.

 

1. Not to consume blood (starts in the law given to Noah and is repeated in the Mosaic law, and again in the NT when Gentiles are told not to partake of blood, from the Jerusalem counsel) 

2. No graven or molten images, repeated throughout all scripture.

 

I see one major disagreement. When the Mosaic law was given by God, God did not divide the law into categories, like ceremonial, civil, moral, etc., so in my opinion these divisions or categories are all man made/mans opinions. Many laws cross these boundaries and fit in all of them,

[Guest Butero]

 

 

Butero,

 

You have my curiosity.

 

Do you believe women should not cut their hair?

 

Are you familiar with the UPC?

Yes, I am familiar with the UPC.  The Bible simply says the woman should have long hair and the hair is given to her has a covering.  It doesn't specify that they can never cut their hair.  My biggest issues with the UPC is their denial of the trinity, and their belief that you aren't saved until you are baptized in the name of Jesus and speak in tongues.  I am more of a traditional Trinitarian Pentecostal.  The closest church I can give you that is close to my beliefs is Paw Creek Church in Charlotte N.C., and I don't agree with all their positions.  I do however download sermons from their church and listen to them while traveling.  Pastor Chambers has the same view I do on pants and hair length, but he actually is stronger on the pants issue than I am.  He has said he doesn't believe women that wear pants will go in the rapture, and I am more cautious than making that kind of judgment.  He refers to women that wear pants as having a "Jezebel Spirit."  I would be more inclined to call it a rebellious spirit, because Jezebel was a God hater and Baal worshipper.  I agree with him in principle, but am more cautious about terminology like that.   He does agree with people like Nebula on entertainment.  He is very strict across the board, and if his church was closer, I would probably attend it?  It is more than 70 miles from my home.  I visited it one time, and have sent them money on occasion. 

 

http://www.pawcreek.org

 

 

I looked at the site and read the statement of faith.

 

I couldn't help but compare the rules with those of Orthodox Judaism/Chasidic in the same areas.

 

A few differences are:

 

Women must wear dresses: Orthodox Judaism, with sleeves, Paw Creek, no mention of sleeves.

 

Womens hair: Chasidic Judaism, the hair must be covered when out in public because it is sensual, Paw Creek, hair must be long.

   That one is interesting because exposed hair is considered sensual in Judaism, so must be covered, but there is no length requirement while Paw Creek has what is considered a most sensual requirement.

 

Two laws which appears to be absent from Christian churches is one that is repeated over and over, thru the OT and into the NT.

 

1. Not to consume blood (starts in the law given to Noah and is repeated in the Mosaic law, and again in the NT when Gentiles are told not to partake of blood, from the Jerusalem counsel) 

2. No graven or molten images, repeated throughout all scripture.

 

I see one major disagreement. When the Mosaic law was given by God, God did not divide the law into categories, like ceremonial, civil, moral, etc., so in my opinion these divisions or categories are all man made/mans opinions. Many laws cross these boundaries and fit in all of them,

 

Personally, I don't believe in drinking blood.  That practice is forbidden.  I don't believe in having graven or molten images either, but you have to realize why that requirement exists.  It is because people would worship those images.  I was bothered one time while at a Christmas play, and a man who was supposed to be Jesus came out, and people began praising the man.  They were actually looking at him as Jesus.  Nobody meant to do anything wrong, but it bothered me seeing that.  This happens with statues and images as well.

 

As far as hair goes, I am not concerned with what is considered sensual in Judaism.  There is nothing in the OT or NT that says a woman's hair is sensual.  In 1 Corinthians 11, we are simply told a woman's hair should be long, and it is given for a covering. 

 

The divisions of the law exist, whether you want to accept them or not?  If they didn't exist, you wouldn't have some laws being re-affirmed in the NT, while others are discarded.  For instance, we know we are not to kill or steal, which are both from the law of Moses, but at the same time, we don't sacrifice bulls to atone for sin.  As I said, it is not so much that part of the law was done away with, as some parts were not meant to continue forever.  The laws of the Levitical Priesthood were temporary till the cross, but they were not officially repealed.  They didn't have to be because they were never intended to continue forever.  The dietary laws were clearly given to show Israel was a separate people, and when the gentiles were made clean or cleansed by the blood of Jesus, the symbolism changed.  You are free to disagree, but I stand by that as rightly dividing the Word of truth. 

 

BTW, since you have been to the Paw Creek web-site, you might want to check out some of the sermons.  I was just listening to an excellent one about God making up his jewels.  Pastor Chambers brought out some things I hadn't considered before.  I have really enjoyed that feature on his web-site.  It will download by hitting "Save target as" and giving the file a name, or you can just listen to the sermons as they stream. 

[Sevenseas]

 

 

Wonder what the talking donkey would say????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL!...even a donkey knows when to stop..that was my point...the end 

[Qnts2]

 

 

 

Butero,

 

You have my curiosity.

 

Do you believe women should not cut their hair?

 

Are you familiar with the UPC?

Yes, I am familiar with the UPC.  The Bible simply says the woman should have long hair and the hair is given to her has a covering.  It doesn't specify that they can never cut their hair.  My biggest issues with the UPC is their denial of the trinity, and their belief that you aren't saved until you are baptized in the name of Jesus and speak in tongues.  I am more of a traditional Trinitarian Pentecostal.  The closest church I can give you that is close to my beliefs is Paw Creek Church in Charlotte N.C., and I don't agree with all their positions.  I do however download sermons from their church and listen to them while traveling.  Pastor Chambers has the same view I do on pants and hair length, but he actually is stronger on the pants issue than I am.  He has said he doesn't believe women that wear pants will go in the rapture, and I am more cautious than making that kind of judgment.  He refers to women that wear pants as having a "Jezebel Spirit."  I would be more inclined to call it a rebellious spirit, because Jezebel was a God hater and Baal worshipper.  I agree with him in principle, but am more cautious about terminology like that.   He does agree with people like Nebula on entertainment.  He is very strict across the board, and if his church was closer, I would probably attend it?  It is more than 70 miles from my home.  I visited it one time, and have sent them money on occasion. 

 

http://www.pawcreek.org

 

 

I looked at the site and read the statement of faith.

 

I couldn't help but compare the rules with those of Orthodox Judaism/Chasidic in the same areas.

 

A few differences are:

 

Women must wear dresses: Orthodox Judaism, with sleeves, Paw Creek, no mention of sleeves.

 

Womens hair: Chasidic Judaism, the hair must be covered when out in public because it is sensual, Paw Creek, hair must be long.

   That one is interesting because exposed hair is considered sensual in Judaism, so must be covered, but there is no length requirement while Paw Creek has what is considered a most sensual requirement.

 

Two laws which appears to be absent from Christian churches is one that is repeated over and over, thru the OT and into the NT.

 

1. Not to consume blood (starts in the law given to Noah and is repeated in the Mosaic law, and again in the NT when Gentiles are told not to partake of blood, from the Jerusalem counsel) 

2. No graven or molten images, repeated throughout all scripture.

 

I see one major disagreement. When the Mosaic law was given by God, God did not divide the law into categories, like ceremonial, civil, moral, etc., so in my opinion these divisions or categories are all man made/mans opinions. Many laws cross these boundaries and fit in all of them,

 

Personally, I don't believe in drinking blood.  That practice is forbidden.  I don't believe in having graven or molten images either, but you have to realize why that requirement exists.  It is because people would worship those images.  I was bothered one time while at a Christmas play, and a man who was supposed to be Jesus came out, and people began praising the man.  They were actually looking at him as Jesus.  Nobody meant to do anything wrong, but it bothered me seeing that.  This happens with statues and images as well.

 

As far as hair goes, I am not concerned with what is considered sensual in Judaism.  There is nothing in the OT or NT that says a woman's hair is sensual.  In 1 Corinthians 11, we are simply told a woman's hair should be long, and it is given for a covering. 

 

The divisions of the law exist, whether you want to accept them or not?  If they didn't exist, you wouldn't have some laws being re-affirmed in the NT, while others are discarded.  For instance, we know we are not to kill or steal, which are both from the law of Moses, but at the same time, we don't sacrifice bulls to atone for sin.  As I said, it is not so much that part of the law was done away with, as some parts were not meant to continue forever.  The laws of the Levitical Priesthood were temporary till the cross, but they were not officially repealed.  They didn't have to be because they were never intended to continue forever.  The dietary laws were clearly given to show Israel was a separate people, and when the gentiles were made clean or cleansed by the blood of Jesus, the symbolism changed.  You are free to disagree, but I stand by that as rightly dividing the Word of truth. 

 

BTW, since you have been to the Paw Creek web-site, you might want to check out some of the sermons.  I was just listening to an excellent one about God making up his jewels.  Pastor Chambers brought out some things I hadn't considered before.  I have really enjoyed that feature on his web-site.  It will download by hitting "Save target as" and giving the file a name, or you can just listen to the sermons as they stream. 

 

 

It is mentioned in the OT that womens hair is covered. That is the covering.  

 

Since God doesn't divide the law into categories, I don't either. The categories are strictly mans opinion and not Gods. So if you think the divisions exist, that is your opinion, but not from scripture.

 

Do you realize that when an animal is slaughtered, if the blood is not properly drained, the blood will seep out of the vessels and into the meat? So, if you are not eating an animal which has been slaughtered in a fashion to drain the blood, which most slaughter houses do not do, you are eating blood. I don't know of anywhere in scripture where the law says it is wrong to drink blood but alright to eat blood. As you put it, this law is reaffirmed in the NT with no mention of drinking vs eating.  

 

You state about re-affirmation. But all scripture is given by God, and God gave all of the laws. How is it some pick and choose which laws they decide to obey, and ignore others. Jesus repeated many laws but as the NT says, only a small portion of what Jesus did and said is recorded, as there was simply too much to record. Jesus obeyed all of Gods laws as a violation of the law is sin, and Jesus didn't sin. Jesus was Jewish. And Gods law is recorded.