PDA

View Full Version : Tattoos and Earrings



Reedan
Apr 8th 2009, 01:48 AM
What do you all think about tattoos and Earrings, Does it still apply?

This here is direct command
Leviticus 19:28(KJV) - You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead nor print or tattoo any marks upon you; I am the Lord.

The question here is, Why would it now be allowed and why would you want a tattoo?

And now for earrings altough this is probaly not a direct command it may be debateable, and there may be other scriptures on this.

Exodus 32:2(KJV) - And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.

crossnote
Apr 8th 2009, 06:08 AM
What do you all think about tattoos and Earrings, Does it still apply?


Last time I tried applying a tatoo was one I found in a Cracker Jack box in the 3rd grade. The tatoo applied fine, I don't think an earring will though.

Emanate
Apr 8th 2009, 12:25 PM
And now for earrings altough this is probaly not a direct command it may be debateable, and there may be other scriptures on this.

Exodus 32:2(KJV) - And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.


If I am not mistaken, Aaron was wanting gold to make an idol. It is a stretch at best to take a reference to making idols as a prohibition against earrings.

Moxie
Apr 8th 2009, 01:06 PM
What do you all think about tattoos and Earrings, Does it still apply?

This here is direct command
Leviticus 19:28(KJV) - You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead nor print or tattoo any marks upon you; I am the Lord.

Many of the regulations in Leviticus were made because God wanted them to avoid anything related to pagan religious customs.

In the NT we are told our bodies are a temple unto the Lord. One could argue that tattooing is defilement to that body, especially if the art is not glorifying to God. When getting a tattoo, you do have a risk of contracting a bloodbourne pathogen unless the tattoo artist is using new needles each time. (Even autoclaving is not 100% guaranteed). While my comment appears "anti-tattoo", I'm really not sure where the Bible stands on this subject since we are no longer under the OT law. However, in our culture today people often have preconceived notions about those who have tattoos.

Generally speaking, I would say, if someone is in a position or desires to be in a position on day that a tattoo would cause someone else to stumble, don't do it. For example, years ago I taught a senior adult ladies Sunday School class. If I had showed up one day with a tattoo I probably would not have been as effective. Bottomline, whatever we do or say, we should first ask ourselves, "Does this glorify God?" If not, then there's your answer. Hope that helps.



Last time I tried applying a tatoo was one I found in a Cracker Jack box in the 3rd grade. The tatoo applied fine, I don't think an earring will though.

That is too funny. :rofl:

djh22
Apr 8th 2009, 01:31 PM
Number 348 of the 613 Mitzvot states -

Not to tattoo the body like the idolaters (Lev. 19:28)

The idolater being The Amorites as it was their practice to make cuts in their flesh when a person related to them died.

Besides, who observes Leviticus 19:28 these days ?
But then, that's another interesting command.


God bless,
djh22.

dan
Apr 14th 2009, 02:12 PM
I would say that it does still apply.

MT 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

2TIM 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2TIM 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

MT 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

MT 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 7:21)

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Matt 7:22)

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt 7:23)

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matt 7:24)

MT 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

CommanderRobey
Apr 14th 2009, 02:34 PM
Exodus 21:5-6 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

The piercing of the ear was a sign of servitude to someone the person loved and wished to work for. The master was to pierce the ear of the servant.

What master is one's earring representing today? Who bore the hole through the ear? Certainly not God!

matthew94
Apr 14th 2009, 02:58 PM
The Israelites were not to follow the custom's of the false religions around them. Tattoo's were, at that time, particularly associated with false religion. One could easily argue today that that association is lost. And one could further argue that there is nothing which renders a tattoo inherently evil. After all, God gave Cain a tattoo. Circumcision was certainly a cutting of the flesh, but it wasn't 'for the dead' so it was ok. God even speaks metaphorically of Himself getting a tattoo in Isaiah 49:16. In Ezekiel, the righteous are given a mark on their forehead.

Reynolds357
Apr 14th 2009, 03:21 PM
What do you all think about tattoos and Earrings, Does it still apply?

This here is direct command
Leviticus 19:28(KJV) - You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead nor print or tattoo any marks upon you; I am the Lord.

The question here is, Why would it now be allowed and why would you want a tattoo?

And now for earrings altough this is probaly not a direct command it may be debateable, and there may be other scriptures on this.

Exodus 32:2(KJV) - And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.

The command does not still apply, but it is very good advice. The best question would be why do you want tattoos and piercings? I had piercings. I never got tattoos because they do not age well. I looked at them long and hard, but all the designs I liked used colors that do not age well and fade badly. Having said that, I can now look back and say those were the most foolish years of my life. At the time tattoos and piercings interested me, the condition of my relationship with the Lord was terrible. When I re-committed my life to Him and got on fire for Him, the desires of my heart changed. Piercing and tattoos have absolutely NO BENEFIT to me or my ministry. If your ministry is to outlaw bikers, you might have a reason to need them, but I have no need for them or benefit from them.
I am not condemning anyone for them, but Jesus was Jesus was the best evangelist that ever lived and I can guarantee you he had neither piercings or tattoos.

-SEEKING-
Apr 14th 2009, 05:24 PM
What do you all think about tattoos and Earrings,


I have several tattoos and I used to wear an earring. But I don't anymore. This is the way I met the Lord so if he didn't judge me then I won't let anyone else either.

markedward
Apr 14th 2009, 05:48 PM
Um... I don't think the average person who gets their ears pierced does it "for the dead".

Vhayes
Apr 14th 2009, 06:52 PM
If we're gonna get hung up on tattoos and ear rings we'd better bring out the beards and bacon too.

Slug1
Apr 14th 2009, 07:02 PM
If we're gonna get hung up on tattoos and ear rings we'd better bring out the beards and bacon too.
I'd be so hurting... I shave, I have tattoos and if it wouldn't kill me, I'd eat bacon every day. So I eat it once a week or two ;)


I don't have any piercing though cause I don't like them.

Vhayes
Apr 14th 2009, 07:07 PM
I'd be so hurting... I shave, I have tattoos and if it wouldn't kill me, I'd eat bacon every day. So I eat it once a week or two ;)


I don't have any piercing though cause I don't like them.
Yep! I have bacon on anything I can.

i guess my point is, you cannot choose one or two and leave the rest behind. That simply isn't the way it worked. What did God say?

If you keep ALLLLLLLLLLLLL my statutes.... not just the bacon one or the tattoo one.
V

andrew_no_one
Apr 14th 2009, 07:11 PM
It was an ancient custom among warriors in some groups to take tattoo markings as a method of counting those they had killed. In light of this, it is little wonder they were forbidden among God's chosen people. God would certainly not want us to gain respect and status by the number of human lives we have taken.

dan
Apr 15th 2009, 07:05 AM
...Once met an Islamic Phillipino that was so proud of the fact that he'd killed Christians, that he tatooed eight little crosses, like tears, running down his face from his right eye.

JordanW
Apr 15th 2009, 07:59 AM
I have both earrings and tattoos, doesn't bother me.

BHS
Apr 15th 2009, 11:42 AM
I would dispute that tatooes are not particularly associated with false religion. Look at the relationship of tatooes and religious festivals around the world and I think you will discover differently. But the most poignant question is not what do we think, what do others think, but what does God think. It is one thing for God to mark us and another for us to mark ourselves for our own pleasure.

As far as pork is concerned. Do an experiment -- set uncooked pork out and pour coca cola over it and let is set a few hours and see what happens. :eek:

Blessings,
BHS

Ta-An
Apr 18th 2009, 10:59 AM
How about tattooed wedding bands :
Firstly it can't be stolen or lost, it can't wear or become too tight and it its permanence is a symbol of the measure of a couples commitment. For those who are allergic to metals, the benefits are obvious...

matthew94
Apr 18th 2009, 04:27 PM
How about tattooed wedding bands :

I actually have a tattooed wedding band!

And believe me, I was the last person I ever thought would get a tattoo. I really don't like tattoos and have always joked about how much 'many' people who get them will end up regretting it years later.

But I also don't like jewelry. I heard about the tattoo wedding band and thought it through and decided I'd go that direction for 3 reasons.

1. In a society where commitments are so fickle, I believe a tattoo is a better symbol for commitment than a ring that you can take off at any moment

2. Like I said, I don't like wearing jewelry

3. I'm a pastor with a tattoo. In my circles, that's an interesting conversation starter.

Ta-An
Apr 18th 2009, 06:29 PM
matthew94, you are the last person I would have thought to do that :D

That is very sensitive skin on your finger ;)

Well done!!

Now post us a picture, do you have a name in it or what,,,, :hmm:

matthew94
Apr 18th 2009, 08:02 PM
I went very basic. Just a charcoal colored ring (my favorite color, and the lady said it wouldn't fade too badly since it's dark). There is a picture on my blog. HERE (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_g7mV5-KW5TI/SXfX5DAsPrI/AAAAAAAAAXo/HtzAs418CW4/s1600-h/tattoo.jpg) is the link :)

Ta-An
Apr 18th 2009, 08:06 PM
I went very basic. Just a charcoal colored ring (my favorite color, and the lady said it wouldn't fade too badly since it's dark). There is a picture on my blog. HERE (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_g7mV5-KW5TI/SXfX5DAsPrI/AAAAAAAAAXo/HtzAs418CW4/s1600-h/tattoo.jpg) is the link :)Ok thanks, and your wife, does she also has a tattooed ring??

matthew94
Apr 18th 2009, 08:21 PM
Haha, nope. Unfortunately for my wallet she wanted the real deal!

BroRog
Apr 18th 2009, 08:26 PM
What do you all think about tattoos and Earrings, Does it still apply?

This here is direct command
Leviticus 19:28(KJV) - You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead nor print or tattoo any marks upon you; I am the Lord.

The question here is, Why would it now be allowed and why would you want a tattoo?

And now for earrings altough this is probaly not a direct command it may be debateable, and there may be other scriptures on this.

Exodus 32:2(KJV) - And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.

How many people are keeping Leviticus today?

Ta-An
Apr 18th 2009, 08:28 PM
How many people are keeping Leviticus today?Then they'd need to keep the Sabbath too :idea:

Slug1
Apr 18th 2009, 08:48 PM
How many people are keeping Leviticus today?Are you asking this as we are now under Grace through faith in Jesus Christ or are you asking this as for a Jew under the Law before Jesus issued in the New Covenant?

I guess if the answer is "Keep the Law" then they're a realllllllllllly old Jew still under the Law ;)

BroRog
Apr 18th 2009, 09:20 PM
Are you asking this as we are now under Grace through faith in Jesus Christ or are you asking this as for a Jew under the Law before Jesus issued in the New Covenant?

I guess if the answer is "Keep the Law" then they're a realllllllllllly old Jew still under the Law ;)

What I have in mind is this. If Christians are going to the Mosaic Law looking for principles of how to live a Godly life, they need to keep in mind that some of the Mosaic Laws were given to Israel in order to set them apart from other people.

The question we must ask -- on a case by case basis -- is whether the law or commandment dictates the attitudes and behavior that are characteristic of a good person, or whether the law in question dictates distinctive ways of living as a unique people at a particular time and place.

In this case, we ask whether God's restriction against getting a tattoo describes the proper conduct of good, moral people, or whether getting a tattoo would simply misidentify the person as someone other than an Israelite living under Yahweh?

Is God saying that getting a tattoo is always immoral? Or is he saying that getting a tattoo was improper for those folks living in that country at that time?

And in general, we could ask similar questions of all the rules found in Leviticus.

Slug1
Apr 18th 2009, 09:32 PM
What I have in mind is this. If Christians are going to the Mosaic Law looking for principles of how to live a Godly life, they need to keep in mind that some of the Mosaic Laws were given to Israel in order to set them apart from other people.

The question we must ask -- on a case by case basis -- is whether the law or commandment dictates the attitudes and behavior that are characteristic of a good person, or whether the law in question dictates distinctive ways of living as a unique people at a particular time and place.

In this case, we ask whether God's restriction against getting a tattoo describes the proper conduct of good, moral people, or whether getting a tattoo would simply misidentify the person as someone other than an Israelite living under Yahweh?

Is God saying that getting a tattoo is always immoral? Or is he saying that getting a tattoo was improper for those folks living in that country at that time?

And in general, we could ask similar questions of all the rules found in Leviticus.I've been asking this basically since I came here as a member and I still have not received an answer I understand :hmm:

We're all under the Grace of Jesus Christ and why someone would want to remain under portions of the Law... I don't know. I say portions cause that's what people who decide to follow the Law, do... follow the parts they like and disregard the parts they don't like or are told they don't have to follow... well, God said follow these Laws and He didn't say only the ones you like. Guess it can't be discussed in this thread cause it'll derail it... shouldn't have even posted this :rolleyes:

I understand what ya say though as those Laws were for a specific people for a specific time for a specific reason and once that reason was born as the Son of Man, the New Covenant was then in effect.

BHS
Apr 18th 2009, 11:10 PM
Here is an article by Terry Watkins regarding Tattoos. He reviews many of the Biblical references Christians use to justify tattoos. Admittedly, he is far more judgmental than I would be. Overlooking that -- whether you agree or not, it is certainly something to think about.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/watkins_tattoos/bible.html

God bless,
BHS

holyrokker
Apr 19th 2009, 02:27 AM
How many people are keeping Leviticus today?

It's not really a matter of who is or isn't "keeping" Leviticus today. The larger issue is who knows how to read and understand Scripture today?

CommanderRobey
Apr 19th 2009, 05:22 AM
Here is an article by Terry Watkins regarding Tattoos. He reviews many of the Biblical references Christians use to justify tattoos. Admittedly, he is far more judgmental than I would be. Overlooking that -- whether you agree or not, it is certainly something to think about.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/watkins_tattoos/bible.html

God bless,
BHS
Great article. Very well laid out by Terry Watkins. Terry uses the very same arguments I have used in my argument against tattoos.

crossnote
Apr 19th 2009, 06:30 AM
The way Terry speaks and looking at some of his other articles on tatoos you'd think they were the mark of the beast.
A scripture he uses from the NT to justify his position sort of backfires in my opinion.

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Who says that a person can't glorify God in one's body thru a cross or scripture dyed into the skin?

This whole issue reminds me of the OT laws of forbidden foods now proclaimed clean in the NT. Sure you can claim all the Levitical passages against 'tatoos' but since our bodies are likened to tens (temporary residencies) why can't we hang a sign out front?

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
(2Co 5:1-4)

CommanderRobey
Apr 19th 2009, 06:33 AM
Who's to say that it is glorifying God? After all, God said not to print marks on the body, did He not?

Slug1
Apr 19th 2009, 12:49 PM
Who's to say that it is glorifying God? After all, God said not to print marks on the body, did He not?Once again, this was for specific Jews, during a specific period of history, for a very specific reason. Jesus was that reason and all of us (Jews and Gentiles), including those "once" held by the Law to keep themselves justified before the Lord are all now under the Grace of Jesus Christ.

God also said not to trim the edges of our beards and hair at the temples... I do this a few times a week... no one comes down on me for doing this which is against the Law of Moses. Why not? Are we to go by what the dude who wrote the article says, what he put together or are we to really seek God and ask Him why those Jews of that time period couldn't do it instead of what this dude wrote. Look, God tells us if one Law is broke, they're all broke and no one can tell me they hold themselves to all the Law... even the people they were written for (not us) could hold themselves to it and that is why we have Jesus... and now people want to GO BACK to those Law's instead of staying under the Grace that Jesus is offering us.

We should all stay under His grace, and not bound by the Law that wasn't for us due to our nationalities (most of us) and the fact we weren't living at that time.

CommanderRobey
Apr 19th 2009, 01:02 PM
In this very same book, we find that we are not to commit sin through bestiality. This command is nowhere in the New Testament. Does that mean we are allowed to now?

In this very same book, we find we are not allowed to prostitute our daughters. Since this command is not found in the New Testament, does that mean we are free to do this?

BroRog
Apr 19th 2009, 04:52 PM
In this very same book, we find that we are not to commit sin through bestiality. This command is nowhere in the New Testament. Does that mean we are allowed to now?

In this very same book, we find we are not allowed to prostitute our daughters. Since this command is not found in the New Testament, does that mean we are free to do this?

I can't speak for the others but I would like to take your questions seriously in order to put a finer point on my own statement earlier.

Paul says in his epistle to the Romans that we are no longer under law but under grace. I think everyone here agrees with Paul. And so our discussion is our collective effort to sort out what that means in practical life.

I think that the Mosaic Law contains within it, the moral vision of God himself. Not only does it dictate the laws of the land, but his moral values are the basis of these laws and many of the laws codify a set of ethical standards that we should adopt.

Reading Jesus' interaction with his culture, with those living under the law is instructive for those of us trying to sort through the laws looking for guidance. As I read the Lord's interaction with various people, I listen with interest as he puts the law into perspective for his disciples. One of the sharper passages came immediately to mind.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. Matthew 23:23

It would appear that the Pharisees made the common mistake (at least I think its common) evaluating each and every law, rule, ordinance, and etc. as having the same weight. Yet, according to Jesus, the Pharisees placed tithing mint, dill, and cummin as being more important -- weightier -- than justice, mercy and faithfulness. These men devalued such things in favor of other, less weighty things and in the process, seemed to have forgotten or lost the most significant aspects of God's moral standard.

This illustrates to me that in Jesus' evaluation, certain laws and rules had more "weight" to them. As Jews living under the covenant, each of them were supposed to keep the entire law and so Jesus says they should be concerned with justice, mercy and faithfulness "without neglecting the others." At the same time, he grants relative importance to some laws over others. In the context of his own culture in which all the rules were to be kept, he evaluates some as being more important than the others.

In another passage, we find Jesus putting his own views into practice.


But the synagogue official, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, began saying to the crowd in response, "There are six days in which work should be done; so come during them and get healed, and not on the Sabbath day." But the Lord answered him and said, "You hypocrites, does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the stall and lead him away to water him? And this woman, a daughter of Abraham as she is, whom Satan has bound for eighteen long years, should she not have been released from this bond on the Sabbath day?" Luke 13:14-16

Much could be said about this passage. Here Jesus is healing on the Sabbath Day, choosing to heal a woman on the Sabbath Day rather than healing her on the next day. The synagogue official was right on both counts. Jesus could have waited one more day to heal the woman. And the Law says that there are six days in which work can be done. It would seem, however, that Jesus chose to heal this woman on the Sabbath day to stress the point again that God instituted the Sabbath day in order to serve mankind, while his contemporaries have enslaved man to the Sabbath day rule.

To answer your question, then, I am not advocating that we simply ignore the OT. The question isn't, "which rules are in force now?" That would ignore Jesus' commentary on the law and our relationship to it as believers. The question should be, "living in a culture which is NOT under the law, how shall I evaluate the Mosaic Law in terms of a universal moral vision, which would apply to all human beings? Since Jesus gave more weight to some aspects of the law than others, he seems to be commending those who do the same and remains critical of those who evaluate the laws as being of equal weight.

And so, it would seem, that he wants us to assess the relative importance of each rule according to a criteria that stands above and outside of the fact that it appears in the Bible. All of the laws appear in the Bible. The law about tithing is in the same legal code as the law against prostitution, or bestiality. Even so, the Lord taught us to give more weight to some than the others. Whether his commandments are in the OT or the NT doesn't matter. What matters is that we find and use wisdom to evaluate them as the Lord would.

Now, I'm not here to say, one way or the other, what rule is more important than another. I have my own ideas and could share them with everyone. I'm simply asking that we mimic our Lord in his approach to the law and keep in mind the nuances involved in our NOT being under the law as his culture was.

matthew94
Apr 19th 2009, 06:45 PM
Great article. Very well laid out by Terry Watkins. Terry uses the very same arguments I have used in my argument against tattoos.

I felt the opposite way about the article. I found it very poorly argued.

The author tries to dismiss the context of Leviticus (who is the 'ye')
The author implies that everyone that disagrees with him is carnal
The author uses shallow language (dude) for his fictive opponent
The author fails to discuss the main issue (is it a moral law)*
The author seems to think quoting commentaries makes his case**
The author doesn't seem to understand punctuation
The author doesn't get that a proper application of the verse doesn't make his case that all tattoos are wicked
The author makes a very weak argument against Isaiah 44 & Ezekiel 9
The author assumes his point as a means to making his point***

* It's not enough to quote a commentator (Henry) saying that 'most' of the laws in Leviticus are moral. The question is, is that particular law a moral law or a ceremonial law. He'd be better off arguing that it doesn't matter (as some on this site argue that there are not different types of laws) than to say it's moral just b/c most of the laws in that chapter are moral
** somehow failing to realize that anyone else can just quote another commentary that says the tattoo law is ceremonial and only wrong in the context being described in that chapter. The question is not can I find someone who agrees with me, but does my argument stand up to the laws of interpretation.
*** This is especially evident at the end of the article when he says that if Jesus had a tattoo it would make Him a sinner! That's what we call a logical fallacy.

CommanderRobey
Apr 19th 2009, 08:09 PM
Those who see nothing wrong with tattoos will find fault with anyone who is against them.

We are children of the day and not to walk as the children of night. We are in the world but not of the world. We are told in God's Holy world that we are not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed to the image of Christ.

The only marks Christ has on Him are the marks put on by the sins of the world that were laid upon Him. He has no tattoos. There are no Scriptures that say Christians received a tattoo in the Word of God. That in itself speaks volumes.

We are to pattern ourselves after Christ, not the world.

holyrokker
Apr 20th 2009, 02:54 AM
Those who see nothing wrong with tattoos will find fault with anyone who is against them.
My concern is with proper application of the word of God. I have no personal stake in arguing one way or another regarding tattoos.

I have a very large interest, however in “rightly handling the word of truth”.

Lifting Leviticus 19:28 out of its proper context to condemn tattoos is an abuse to God’s word. It also implies that those who have, or allow tattoos, are sinful.


We are children of the day and not to walk as the children of night. This is from 1 Thess 5:5, which has nothing to do with tattoos.
1 Thess 5:1-11
“Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness.So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.”

It is an admonishment for us to be sober minded, prepared for Christ’s return.

We are in the world but not of the world. We are told in God's Holy world that we are not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed to the image of Christ.
This is true. But wearing tattoos is not conforming to the pattern of the world.


There are no Scriptures that say Christians received a tattoo in the Word of God. That in itself speaks volumes. That says nothing. There are many things not included in Scriptures.


We are to pattern ourselves after Christ, not the world.And as you pointed out, Christ said nothing against tattoos.

Slug1
Apr 20th 2009, 03:21 AM
In this very same book, we find that we are not to commit sin through bestiality. This command is nowhere in the New Testament. Does that mean we are allowed to now?

In this very same book, we find we are not allowed to prostitute our daughters. Since this command is not found in the New Testament, does that mean we are free to do this?Two words found many times in the NT... Sexual Immorality. How does the Holy Spirit convict you? In the OT times the Jews didn't have the Holy Spirit inside of them... sometimes upon them but not in them. So... God had to "spell it out" to them Law by Law. God don't have to do that anymore cause He convicts you by His Spirit within you, to tell you what is Sexually Immoral.

I was not convicted by the Holy Spirit against the tattoo's I have and as many have read my testimony in many tattoo related threads on this board, actually led me to receive the tattoos I have so He can use them to reach out to people spurned by tattoo hating Christians who cause people with tattoos to be pushed away from the Lord due to those Christians doing the pushing.

weazzle
Apr 20th 2009, 04:19 AM
What do you all think about tattoos and Earrings, Does it still apply?

This here is direct command
Leviticus 19:28(KJV) - You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead nor print or tattoo any marks upon you; I am the Lord.

The question here is, Why would it now be allowed and why would you want a tattoo?

And now for earrings altough this is probaly not a direct command it may be debateable, and there may be other scriptures on this.

Exodus 32:2(KJV) - And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.

1 Peter 3:3(NIV) - Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.

Also take a look at Romans 14. The real question is what is the person's motivation for doing these things? To draw attention to themselves, or to draw attention to God?

The passage from Leviticus is an example of God putting a law in place that was aimed people maintaining their physical health.

The passage from Exodus out of context, as Aaron is in the process of using the jewelery of the people of Israel to form a golden calf as an idol when Moses takes too long to come down from the mountain when God gives him the ten commandments.

BadDog
Apr 20th 2009, 04:31 PM
What do you all think about tattoos and Earrings, Does it still apply?

This here is direct command
Leviticus 19:28(KJV) - You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead nor print or tattoo any marks upon you; I am the Lord.

The question here is, Why would it now be allowed and why would you want a tattoo?

And now for earrings altough this is probaly not a direct command it may be debateable, and there may be other scriptures on this.

Exodus 32:2(KJV) - And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.
Why not? You see, we are no longer under the law. That's why it's OK to eat pork, do work on the Sabbath, etc..

Salvation is by faith in Christ.

BD

Slug1
Apr 20th 2009, 04:49 PM
Philippians 3:9-10

and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,

Yeah, through faith not the Law any longer.

BHS
Apr 20th 2009, 11:35 PM
For me, it comes down to what the Word says and how we are to define what it says -- with scripture or our own faulty understanding. I see a lot of justifications, but hardly anything Biblical in them. Those who think the "laws" were meant only for the Jews have not read the Torah very closely, nor the NT very closely if one thinks that grace is opposed to the law.

Blessing,
BHS

Slug1
Apr 21st 2009, 03:16 AM
For me, it comes down to what the Word says and how we are to define what it says -- with scripture or our own faulty understanding. I see a lot of justifications, but hardly anything Biblical in them. Those who think the "laws" were meant only for the Jews have not read the Torah very closely, nor the NT very closely if one thinks that grace is opposed to the law.

Blessing,
BHSNot opposes... trumps it ;)

That's why it's called the New Covenant with God.

crossnote
Apr 21st 2009, 05:37 AM
For me, it comes down to what the Word says and how we are to define what it says -- with scripture or our own faulty understanding. I see a lot of justifications, but hardly anything Biblical in them. Those who think the "laws" were meant only for the Jews have not read the Torah very closely, nor the NT very closely if one thinks that grace is opposed to the law.

Blessing,
BHS

Grace is not opposed to the law. But the law is not of faith and yet the just shall live by faith. The law is a servant-tutor of grace showing and teaching us of our sinfulness thus driving us to Christ (the Source of grace.).


Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
(Act 15:22-30)

I must of missed the tatoo part. BTW I have no tatoos myself but I defend those christians that do.

BHS
Apr 21st 2009, 10:58 AM
Not opposes... trumps it ;)

That's why it's called the New Covenant with God.

So the "law" trumped grace in the OT and grace trumped the "law" in the NT? I hardly think so. The two coincide together. We still have instructions to live by today, regardless of what you call them. "Avoid the appearance of evil" says a whole lot in today's world.

Neither is the NT in opposition to the OT. The OT Scriptures claim not only to inform, but also to transform:

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure making wise the simple."

BHS

crossnote
Apr 23rd 2009, 05:13 AM
So the "law" trumped grace in the OT and grace trumped the "law" in the NT? I hardly think so. The two coincide together. We still have instructions to live by today, regardless of what you call them. "Avoid the appearance of evil" says a whole lot in today's world.

Neither is the NT in opposition to the OT. The OT Scriptures claim not only to inform, but also to transform:

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure making wise the simple."

BHS

Both OT/NT do agree. Grace was b4 the law as well as after the ministration of the law. From Adam on, man has always been saved by grace. The law was added mainly to reveal our sinfulness.

grit
Apr 23rd 2009, 02:14 PM
I do not like them, he I be
I do not like them on my me –
Not on my me or thee or we,
I do not like them A to Z.

I do not like an inky tat,
No matter where one puts it at.
I do not like it ink it stink.
I will not on my skin of pink.

I do not like them holy holes,
I will not put them in my nose,
Not in my tongue, not in my ear,
Not my belly, nor my seer.

I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.

:D :hug:

crossnote
Apr 24th 2009, 05:51 AM
I do not like them, he I be
I do not like them on my me –
Not on my me or thee or we,
I do not like them A to Z.

I do not like an inky tat,
No matter where one puts it at.
I do not like it ink it stink.
I will not on my skin of pink.

I do not like them holy holes,
I will not put them in my nose,
Not in my tongue, not in my ear,
Not my belly, nor my seer.

I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.

:D :hug:

Even this one if possible?? :giveup:
Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.
(Rev 14:1)

grit
Apr 24th 2009, 11:23 AM
So… I should try one, so you say?
I should try one and I may…
Like them if I take the leap,
Like them if they speak of Sheep?

I do, I do like them, he I be!
I like them when they’re good you see.
And I could put them in my house,
And I could put them on my mouse.

I will like them here or there.
I will like them EVERYWHERE!
Thank you, thank you, crossnote friend.
I do like them in the end.

:D :hug:

crossnote
Apr 25th 2009, 06:32 AM
So… I should try one, so you say?
I should try one and I may…
Like them if I take the leap,
Like them if they speak of Sheep?

I do, I do like them, he I be!
I like them when they’re good you see.
And I could put them in my house,
And I could put them on my mouse.

I will like them here or there.
I will like them EVERYWHERE!
Thank you, thank you, crossnote friend.
I do like them in the end.

:D :hug:

I pray you try.
not one but two;
Why I hope you apply
God's eternal tatoo. :rofl:

Slug1
Apr 25th 2009, 12:48 PM
So the "law" trumped grace in the OT and grace trumped the "law" in the NT? I hardly think so. The two coincide together. We still have instructions to live by today, regardless of what you call them. "Avoid the appearance of evil" says a whole lot in today's world.

Neither is the NT in opposition to the OT. The OT Scriptures claim not only to inform, but also to transform:

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure making wise the simple."

BHSBetween the two... maybe "trumped" is not a good word to use but the New Covenant is... 'better'

Hebrews 7:18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.

25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Hebrews 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

BHS
Apr 25th 2009, 11:20 PM
Slug1,

The word "covenant' is actually not in verse 13 and what is obsolete does not refer to an "old covenant".

A more accurate description would be the renewed covenant.

But the topic is tattoos.

Blessings,
BHS

Slug1
Apr 26th 2009, 01:24 AM
Slug1,

But the topic is tattoos.

Blessings,
BHSCorrect... so what does the "new" covenant with God, through Jesus, not the "old" covenant with God, through the "laws" say about... tattoos?

BHS
Apr 26th 2009, 04:01 PM
What does it say about bestiality, incest?

Does the "renewed covenant" have to repeat everything that God thinks is important? Does the first 2/3 of the Scripture carry no authority?

According to the Scripture --

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Psalm 19:7-8

The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

Blessings,
BHS

Slug1
Apr 27th 2009, 12:24 AM
What does it say about bestiality, incest?

Blessings,
BHSAnswered the other dude that brought this up and then conveniently avoided my answer... see post number: #41 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2049130&postcount=41)

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77