next »

[Guest]

...loading shoutbox...

[FromHimByHimForHim]

[lupajunie]

 lol, sigh....you're not getting my point at all brother.  

Tattoos can just be another piece of clothing, a ring on your finger, just something totally forgotten about

Something totally forgotten about?  But it isn't something totally forgotten about if that was the case then why get one in the first place.  People have eyes.  

maybe you put that verse on your arm because its your most FAVORITE verse in the whole bible and you want to know that you'll never forget it

Only in this case I might agree with you however if it was your most "FAVORITE" you would remember it and commit it to memory.  I dont give into stereotypes, I'm a christian.  I am concerned however of how effective my evangelism will be by simple "forgotten" things that may effect it.

[FromHimByHimForHim]

 thats not what i meant by as in forgetting its there, i meant forgetting like a ring.  i wear a thumbring and i got it because i liked it and i wanted one, but sometimes during the day i totally forget its there until i see it again.  same with a necklace, not all 24/7 am i reminding myself that i have a thumb ring on. i dont know about you but when i find a verse thats my favorite i write it all over everything.  yes its very good to hide them in your heart and memorize them, but who said its bad to post them everywhere? as you can see on this site people post there favorite verses as their signature. i myself have a verse as my signature.  

[lupajunie]

 haha ah I really want to find a common ground of sorts with you here Daniel.  I still respect everything you say I'm just not completely convinced that its ok.  I was reading the gospel of Matthew in the bible today and here's a verse that caught my attention let me know what you think:

The Fulfillment of the Law

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

I was really blessed by this verse myself.....I didn't know it existed.  Well tell me what you think brother daniel.  With an open heart please......

[FromHimByHimForHim]

 okie dokie heres my response: my mom helped me out...lol...notice in verse 18 in Matthew 5 he says "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the law UNTIL everything is accomplished.  

you know when everything was accomplished? when jesus died on the cross.  that put an end to the law.  yes before he died they were still under it and the law wasnt ended yet because he had not died yet.  everything has been accomplished since Jesus died, and we're not under the law.  

[slamer]

 REALLY I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH TATOOS OR ANY PIECINGS... i HAVE BOTH AND THERE NOT DEGRADING THERE YOU... sOME SAY THAT THEY STAT WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU ARE WELL TO SOME DEGREE THEY DO... sO DONT DISS ON THESE THINGS... JSUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A COUPLE OR TATS OR PIERCINGS DOSENT MEAN ANY THING AT ALL... BUT IF YOU DO GET TATS MAKE THEM NICE NOT TACKY OR GRODY... K


                                        slAmER

[Jon]

 I noticed that leviticus 19:28 was mentioned "Do not cut you bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the lord"

If this applies does leviticus 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your bead"   also still applie.

I dont know. I guess it is a personal thing. I said at the very beggining that i didnt mind. As long as there is nothing evil about your tat or piercing i cant see anything wrong with it.



 

[Cruising 4 Christ]

 Im torn  

[thecrew]

 i think that peircings are alright as long as you arent doing it for attntion or anything like tthat. i think that wen non christians see you as a christian wiv peircings it helps to break down the barrier that people hav made up in their minds of a "holier-than-thou" christian. that is wat non christians hate about christianity. but if they can see that u are still a christian and can still do things like that, then they will b more open to the gospel cause it wont feel like you are judging them. im not sayin 2 go and get heaps of peirciings, there needs to b a balance. the same goes for tatoos, if i were 2 get a tatoo it wood b something that is special to me or means something to me.  if i had a tatoo im sure some ppl wood ask wat it means, and if it means something about my faith, say, then its a great opportunity to share about the lord

[FuzzyBunnyCatholic3JMJ]

 I believe that the most important type of evangelizing, is through our actions, not what we say.  When someone who doesn't fit into a "sterotype" does something to fit in that "sterotype" it astonishes and it gives a strong witness.  I know many Catholics who don't fit in the Catholic "stereotype" but are very devout!  My "motto" is to be simple and spend little money on myself.  So, I say envangelize with your actions, not what you say...  but that is really off topic, so I will shut up and move on!  

[SuperSnail]

 I suppose we all approach things in a different way. I think if sum1 at my church got a tattoo or a body piercing sum people would be totally up in arms. Others would be fine with it. I'm not sure wwhat my parents would say if I got something done! I'm fine with them if they're not vulgar. I suppose I see it as expressing urself, like wearing a special badge or sloganed T-shirt.

[mstoess04]

 personaly why guys get body piecings i think it looks STUPID.  gurls look ok with them on the ears but once you start getting into your nose, tounge, belly-button, etc...no

tattoos...ok...i plan on getting ONE and thats going to be the HALO wings and thats only if i'm on a HALO team..........as long as your body doesn't become a tatoo its alright by me...if you can cover it up with a sleeve i don't see why not

[bella247]

I used to always say I would get a tatto and get some piercing on me when I would turn 18, but my parent where never ok with it,my mom even tolled me one time if you ever do get a tatto I will kick you out of the house lol,wich I did end up getting and a couple of piercing,but then of course I did realized doing that wasn't good..everyone has their different opinion.but sometimes its good to realize what doesn't look wrong is wrong ..haha  pretty long reply..

[Starkindler]

I noticed that leviticus 19:28 was mentioned "Do not cut you bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the lord"

If this applies does leviticus 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your bead"   also still applie.

I dont know. I guess it is a personal thing. I said at the very beggining that i didnt mind. As long as there is nothing evil about your tat or piercing i cant see anything wrong with it.

   The passage of Leviticus 19:26-28 was written in a time of preparation for entry into the land which God had promised to the Israelites.  It was a time of sanctification and dedication to the Lord, and a time when personal, and national, holiness was the emphasis.  The Israelites had been living in Egypt, a land of both myth and superstition, for many years.  Later passages (Joshua 24:14) even inform the reader that the Israelites might, or probably, had been carrying over both traditions and/or deities of the land from which they had just been delivered.  The event involving the Golden Calf (likely a throwback to Egyptian imagery) along with the later infidelity at Baal Peor both give testament to the primary failing of the Israelite nation, that of adultery of the heart.
   Leviticus 19, in and of itself, seems to serve as a summary section for the main messages of the book.  The book itself is an incredibly detailed account of God’s directives for holiness in both personal life and in worship.   In Leviticus 19, God seems to summarize many of the primary messages throughout the book by means of principles and proverbial structure.  The commands in this section appear to be either gnomic principles (i.e. 19:3) or practices which embody greater principles. Verses 26-28 seem to fall into this latter category.
   The chapter itself is easily broken up into its various sections.  Each section appears to consist of a set of principles or directives followed by the concluding statement “I am the LORD your God.”  This structure appears 15 times throughout the dialogue encompassed in this chapter.  The dialogue opens with a call to holiness, and each of the sections following adheres to this central theme.   The primary themes throughout the whole of the dialogue are holiness in relationship, in worship, and in inclusive devotion (i.e. abstaining from idols).  The practices listed in verses 26-28 are neither gnomic in nature nor practices pertaining to holiness in life with others (such as in verses 9-10), therefore it can be assumed that they pertain to specific religious practices of the Canaanite peoples. 
The section in question opens with a prohibition concerning eating meat containing the blood, which is linked to similar prohibitions on “divination” and “soothsaying” (19:26, NASB).  This connection makes even greater sense when viewed through the means by which blood was seen in biblical times.  Blood was life and contained the spirit of a man and thus contained special power or insight.  Similar prohibitions regarding consuming blood are given in Leviticus 3:17 and 7:26-27.  The shedding of blood is also the primary means by which the forgiveness of sins is granted.  When the nature of the Israeli view of blood is taken, in conjunction with the link given to soothsaying and divination in the passage, it is fair to assume that the prohibition here is regarding the spiritualistic practices of the land which they would be entering, with commentators such as Ibn Ezra even positing that the practices in this verse were referring to predicting the movement of the clouds.
The prohibition regarding the eating of blood and divination is followed by a more puzzling command.  In verse 27 God gives a prohibition regarding the trimming of a man’s beard or hair by “rounding out” the “corners” or “edges”.  Whether this is referring to a specific style is unknown, but the principle still remains.  The practice listed here could be a timeless principle if it existed in a void; however, it is linked, by way of the section it is in, to the themes surrounding it.  Just prior to this prohibition is given a command regarding spiritualizing and divination, so it is safe to assume that this practice is likewise dedicated.  The practice of trimming one’s beard, or hair, could possibly be referring to giving a bold and outward sign of dedication to an ideal or religious ideology.  It would be unable to be hidden, and throughout history, and in the Middle East, it would be have been and continue to be a common sign.  Where the first command regards things which could be done in private relating to a certain ideology, this one appears to be regarding the outward allegiance to the same.
The final command in the section involves the marking of one’s body “for the dead” or making inscriptions on one’s skin.  Given the nature of the first part of the prohibition, and the nature of the section as a whole, it is again safe to relate this to spiritual practices of the land they were entering.  Much like the initial prohibition in verse 26, this verse seems to link a clearly spiritualistic practice to one which is more questionable in nature and possibly a universal prohibition.  However, the initial command to not make cuts on one’s body “for the dead” placed the whole of this command, once again, as a reference to specific spiritual practices and traditions of the time and a call for the holiness of spiritual practices.

[beforHim]

To be relevant, we just need to realize that usually, when you see people covered with tatoos or piercings, a certain picture comes to mind.  So even though tatoos ad piercings are in no way bad and make no one bad, would you get "evil" looking tats and all pierced up, and then expect to be accpted as a missionary to certain places?  I mean, to use a parralel example, if you want to reach Muslims for Christ, would you hike up in a Mosque wearing nothing but swim trunks, and drinking a beer (Muslims despise and forbid alcohol)?

Just realize why certain commands are made (the cannanites, the people around Israel, probably had tattoos and God didn't want Isreal in any way to be associated with them), and then you can see the value in them.

[RAVENOUS]

I think its deeper than that really. The thing that really started me down the path of obeying much more of the Old Testament Laws than I was previously was stopping to consider what good morality was, where it came from, and how long it is in effect in this world that is quickly running out of time.

For months on end I argued with myself and with other scholarly people about the issue but always in the back of my mind I was forming an opinion based on the "feeling out" of this issue. Finally I came upon a few simple, and reasonably philosophically sound conclusions.

These are undeniably sound philosophical ideas that I present:

• 1.) The Almighty and Holy Divine one as scripture proclaims, is the single original and constant source and beacon of true holy morality, all that which is good.
• 2.) The Almighty and Holy Divine one as scripture proclaims, is inherently and permanently against unholy morality that when incarnated, is sin.
• 3.) The Almighty and Holy Divine one as scripture proclaims, is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He never changes.
• 4.) The Almighty and Holy Divine one as scripture proclaims, never lies.

With these ideals in mind, looking at his "Torah" (which means translated, his Teaching, Instruction, Commandments, etc.) I see a few constants that are drawn from the short list above, but here is the biggest one:

If the Almighty and Holy Divine one declares something at any point in time to be Morally wrong, it is forever Morally wrong. This never changes because he is forever the true source of holy morality and is forever against unholy morality. Should anyone choose to partake of what is deemed morally wrong by the Almighty, for any reason, they are still acting out what he has deemed moral wrongness.

My stance against tatoos is not based entirely on this passage, it is from others. The main one is the Almighty's admonition against partaking in the ways of the Pagans, of unholy tribal customs. He states in his scripture, his Torah (instruction, teaching, commandments) that it is morally wrong to do so. Remember that what is morally wrong never ceases to be morally wrong if it is deemed so by the almighty. Today for vast majority of the practice, it is the pagans and unbelievers who continue to tatoo themselves. All over historically you can see pagan nations partaking in the practice from Mystic Egypt to the Idolatrous Chinese dynasties, to modern day groups that are quite the opposite of devout believers. Tatooing has long been part of religious practices formed by religions that are inherently against the Almighty.

If he says its morally wrong to act like the Pagans, why should we? Is it because we think that "Grace" will cover us when we knowingly and willfully commit acts that are morally wrong? The NT shows us that people like that who do sinful things knowing they are wrong do not really know salvation in the first place. So does this make me more or less ready to say "no" when my sailor buddies and uncle continuously ask me to get tatoos with them? I think it's an easy thing to figure out.

Never do what is deemed immoral by the Almighty, no matter what anyone tells you.

Peace

[beforHim]

As I say "the spirit of the law"- the law against tatooing is more-than-likely a law saying "don't even put yourself in a circumstance were you will be associated with evil groups, even if the association will be wrong".

If the commandment was ONLY against the association with pagans via tattoos, and nothing else, then what about all the stuff that Bible never speaks on?  The OT never speaks against wearing a ball cap backwards, but I know lots of adults who see people wearing them backwards and automatically assume that the person is "bad".  Silly example I know, but hopefully my point is gotten.  Wearing al black now-a-days: it looks bad to do this in America, you get associated with all sorts of anti- and supposedly anti-Christian people, but the Bible never says "don't wear all black, for you are to be Holy as I am Holy".

So either the commandment has an eternal principle behind it, one to be applied appropriately, or else tattoos, trimming of beards, cooking goats in its mom's milk, etc. are the ONLY things which I shouldn't do.  I guess I'll never trim my beard again (go all out amish    lol   )

[RAVENOUS]

As I say "the spirit of the law"- the law against tatooing is more-than-likely a law saying "don't even put yourself in a circumstance were you will be associated with evil groups, even if the association will be wrong".

If the commandment was ONLY against the association with pagans via tattoos, and nothing else, then what about all the stuff that Bible never speaks on?  The OT never speaks against wearing a ball cap backwards, but I know lots of adults who see people wearing them backwards and automatically assume that the person is "bad".  Silly example I know, but hopefully my point is gotten.  Wearing al black now-a-days: it looks bad to do this in America, you get associated with all sorts of anti- and supposedly anti-Christian people, but the Bible never says "don't wear all black, for you are to be Holy as I am Holy".

So either the commandment has an eternal principle behind it, one to be applied appropriately, or else tattoos, trimming of beards, cooking goats in its mom's milk, etc. are the ONLY things which I shouldn't do.  I guess I'll never trim my beard again (go all out amish    lol   )

You speak a lot about the "Spirit of the Law" and then say that the bible never speaks about certain things, this is curious to me as the idea of the "Spirit of the Law" is generally more far reaching with its coverage. The scripture says there is nothing new under the sun which means that man can only perform so many actions in life, and all of these actions are covered in scripture. Hats? An example would be that there is nothing morally wrong about wearing a hat backwards. That's really the issue, the whole morality thing right? There's commandments about; "Lying, Stealing, Cheating, Murdering" and these are all moral wrongs performed by an individual. Are they all covered? Yes. Is it always easy to see the connection? No.

In example, a stock broker convinces the competition that he is setting up a fair deal, X amount of goods for X amount of dollars based on a foreign exchange rate. Now he gets an insider tip that the exchange rate has altered by 10 points allowing him to get more money than the other guy is aware of and he acts on this information to his benefit. Is that morally wrong? Yes. What commandment does this violate? "You shall not use uneven weights and measurements." What if you are undercharged and you pay $5.00 for a $25.00 computer program, and you know it. If you walk away knowing this are you morally at fault? Yes. Because of the commandment I just stated. And how about being a judge in court and judging favorably in the case of a rich man, but judging poorly in the case of a poor man. What direct commandment does this break? The same one the stock broker, and the one making the unfair purchase breaks. The judge uses uneven "weights" to judge cases.

What about flying in airplanes, wearing hats backwards, eating three pieces of toast instead of two? None of these are against the commandments because they are not morally wrong. No direct commandment exists in the bible that forbids it, and no indirect commandment forbids it either. What's an indirect commandment? It's a commandment that we have when we look at a direct commandment and see the "Spirit" of the commandment. Very much like "The Spirit of the Law".

You have to understand that whatever you can think of that is not forbidden by a direct commandment, AND is not forbidden by an indirect commandment is acceptable. That's the way the OT laws were set up, to give a big enough direct (and indirect) commandment "database" to compare our actions to rather than the Almighty writing a personal four million page essay with directions on what to do with each and every breath we take. That's a big enough witness to "the Spirit of the Law" to make me want to perform the direct commandments (clear black and white examples of morality) as well as search for the indirect ones (the "spirit" found by meditating on those direct commandments). I mean it's understandable to not understand or have the wisdom to know the indirect commandments, but what's the excuse for the stuff the Almighty outlines in black and white? He says "I want you to rest on the seventh day after working six days, this is a continual commandment that you will follow forever as a sign that I am your God.", and many Christians refuse to do this. He outlines (according to the Spirit of the Law) "Driving vehicles on my holy seventh day if not an emergency is forbidden.", yet we don't follow that "Law of the Spirit" and I ask why not?

Why do people who call themselves followers and Children of the almighty feel it is okay to break the commandments he gave them in black and white? Why does understanding the "Spirit of the Law" make the direct laws void?

Peace

[beforHim]

In example, a stock broker convinces the competition that he is setting up a fair deal, X amount of goods for X amount of dollars based on a foreign exchange rate. Now he gets an insider tip that the exchange rate has altered by 10 points allowing him to get more money than the other guy is aware of and he acts on this information to his benefit. Is that morally wrong? Yes. What commandment does this violate? "You shall not use uneven weights and measurements." What if you are undercharged and you pay $5.00 for a $25.00 computer program, and you know it. If you walk away knowing this are you morally at fault? Yes. Because of the commandment I just stated. And how about being a judge in court and judging favorably in the case of a rich man, but judging poorly in the case of a poor man. What direct commandment does this break? The same one the stock broker, and the one making the unfair purchase breaks. The judge uses uneven "weights" to judge cases.

I think we're meaning different things by "the spirit of the law" , which is shown in that:

I don't think the comparison between the two parables works.  That's taking the "black and white" law and suddenly changing it to "the spirit of the law".  The stock broker yes, broke the direct violation, but the judge in no way was in the same circumstance.  The spirit of the law, to me (and I might need a change of terminology here, call it somehting else besides "the spirit of the law") is taking the direct commandment and gleaning out the eternal principles which hold true for all times and al situations.  Thus, don't cheat someone in business transactions by using unequal weights turns into don't cheat in business transactions in general, or don't cheat someone using deceptive methods in general.

I just say all that to try and clarify what I mean by "spirit of the law".

What about flying in airplanes, wearing hats backwards, eating three pieces of toast instead of two?

If Flying in airplanes was known and was commonly used for, say, unlawful purposes, and when one got into an airplane, it was pretty much assured that something uncool was going on, then what commandment could we look at?  Wearing a hat backwards in out USA culture is often a blatant statement of "I am rebelling, and I don't care what you think".  If we knew that our kid, by eating three pieces of toast, would become sick, but two was the right amount for the essential nutrients, then what commandment in the Bible as a whole could we look for to get the eternal principle, "treat your physical body in such a way as to glorify God".

If God suddenly came down now and chose some people in the middle of, say, New York, then  I'm guessing some commands, being derived from eternal principles, would be, "Don't hang around street corners at night" (hookers and association with), or "don't let starngers into your place of worship" (many sneaky, harmful people around looking to get kicks or steal and to just let them come rght in would be like just letting them do whatever they want).  I mean, the eternal principles are there- the commandments come from them, not the other way around.

I think we agree with each other in a lot of this, but we put the emphasis in different places.  Maybe, but I may be wrong- but I don't think so.

[andersbranderud]

Tatoos is forbidden in Torah and the first century Ribi Yehoshua ha-Mashiakh (the Messiah) from Nazareth taught Torah-observance.

Ribi Yehoshua ha-Mashiakh (the Messiah) from Nazareth’s authentic teachings reads:
[Torah, Oral Law & Hebrew Matityahu: Ribi Yehoshua Commanded Non-Selective Observance
The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) 5:17-20]
[Glossaries found in the website below.]:

"I didn't come to subtract from the Torâh of Moshëh or the Neviim, nor to add onto the Torah of Moshëh did I come. Because, rather, I came to [bring about the] complete [i.e., non-selective] observance of them in truth.
Should the heavens and ha-Aretz exchange places, still, not even one י or one   of the Halâkhâh of the Torah of Moshehshall so much as exchange places; toward the time when it becomes that they are all being performed -- i.e., non- selectively -- in full.
For whoever deletes one [point of] the Halâkhâh of these mitzwot from Torah, or shall teach others such, [by those in] the Realm of the heavens he shall be called 'deleted.' And whoever ratifies and teaches them shall be called ' Ribi' in the Realm of the heavens.

For I tell you that unless your tzәdâqâh is over and above that of the [Hellenist-Roman Pseudo- Tzedoqim] Codifiers of halakhah, and of the Rabbinic- Perushim sect of Judaism, no way will you enter into the Realm of the heavens." (see NHM)

Quote from www.netzarim.co.il ; “History Museum”

The reconstruction is made using a scientific and logic methodology. One of the premises is that the historical Ribi Yehoshua was a Torah-observant Pharisee (why that premise is true is found in the above website, in which you also will find more information about why a reconstruction is needed).

The historical Ribi Yehoshua and his followers Netzarim observed Torah non-selectively.

Here is one of the mitzwot that one are required to follow in order to follow the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua:
Torah including Halakhah with a formal logical connection to Torah (i.e. it is a mitzwah (directive or military-style order)), requires subordination to a beit-din. The only option (learn more why that is the case in the below website) for those whom believe that Ribi Yehoshua is ha-Mashiakh and wants to follow him is to subordinate to the beit-din ha-Netzarim (the only legitimate Netzarim: www.netzarim.co.il).

That is required for the person who want to follow the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua.

Anders Branderud