ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Tattoos Are For Pagan

I consider tattoos to be pagan. The Bible says not to get tattoos. (Leviticus 19:28) In the New Testament, anyone that receives the mark of the beast is not to be saved. (Revelation 14:9-10) Why are so many Christians now getting tattoos?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Christian Living Quiz
 ---mike4879 on 8/3/16
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



Nicole_Lacey:

Yes, precisely. But how do YOU know what that canon was? They didn't publish a list of books they accepted and rejected. One can only make educated deductions based on what works they quoted - and they never quoted from the deutrocanonical books, so one cannot conclude either that they accepted them, nor that they rejected them.

So WHY do YOU have the Book of Esther if it isn't in the Dead Scrolls?

Again, one cannot conclude something from an absence of evidence. You claim that the Jews accepted the deutrocanonical books, yet the ONE SINGLE existing set of manuscripts from B.C. that totally lacks any of them - whie this is not proof that they didn't, it provides no evidence that they did.
---StrongAxe on 8/27/16


//There was no established canon until around 100 A.D. Before that, there were different groups that had different ideas about which books should be included, and, by and large, these were fairly similar, but they were not all identical.//

The only Canon that matters is the one Jesus used which His Disciples knew the Canon.

//For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls write written quite a long time before Jesus, and contained all of the books of the O.T. except Esther - but none of the deutrocanonical books. I wonder why?---StrongAxe on 8/26/16

So WHY do YOU have the Book of Esther if it isn't in the Dead Scrolls?
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/26/16


Nicole_Lacey:

No. There was no established canon until around 100 A.D. Before that, there were different groups that had different ideas about which books should be included, and, by and large, these were fairly similar, but they were not all identical. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls write written quite a long time before Jesus, and contained all of the books of the O.T. except Esther - but none of the deutrocanonical books. I wonder why?

There as no established New Testament canon until around 500 A.D. or so either. The books were all there, and there were several popular consensuses, but they were not identical until they were formalized and finalized.
---StrongAxe on 8/26/16


//Because HIS Disciple knew the canon of books Jesus used and it was pass down to their Disciples until the 5th century to compile all these books- Me

And yet not a single one of them quoted from the deutrocanonical books. While this can't be used to prove they rejected them, it can't be used to prove they accepted them either.---StrongAxe on 8/25/16

I Think you forgot what started this argument?

The basis of this argument is to establish that there was a canon of books USED by the Jews including Jesus before 100 A.D.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/26/16


Nicole_Lacey:

Because HIS Disciple knew the canon of books Jesus used and it was pass down to their Disciples until the 5th century to compile all these books

And yet not a single one of them quoted from the deutrocanonical books. While this can't be used to prove they rejected them, it can't be used to prove they accepted them either.


Still, regardless of when the Jewish canon was established, and regardless of whether it is correct or not, your claim that "the main body of Jews accept all 46 books" is false, because you used the present tense, and for the past 1900+ years, they only accept the 39 (on 24 scrolls).
---StrongAxe on 8/25/16




//that it was fluid for several centuries.//

Yes, many books where around for centuries. But the COMPILING of CERTAIN books and letters occurred first in the 5th century

//How do you know for sure what Canon Jesus used?//

Because HIS Disciple knew the canon of books Jesus used and it was pass down to their Disciples until the 5th century to compile all these books
TRADITION before a Written Bible.

//KJV-onlyists who insist the KJV is the only true bible because "If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me" (ignoring the fact that the KJV was written almost 1600 years after Jesus died.)--StrongAxe

YOU GOT IT!
Now replace the KJV with the Jewish Canon compiled in the 100 A.D.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/25/16


Nicole_Lacey:

So, my numbers were a bit off, but whether or not the canon was completed in the 1st century, the fact that it was not formally adopted until the 5th meant that it was fluid for several centuries.

But the Canon used by Jesus Christ time should be good enough for US Christians.

How do you know for sure what Canon Jesus used? He never quoted from any of the deutrocanonical books, so you can't say for sure whether he considered them canonical or not.

It's a bit like the KJV-onlyists who insist the KJV is the only true bible because "If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me" (ignoring the fact that the KJV was written almost 1600 years after Jesus died.)
---StrongAxe on 8/24/16


Well said. Thanks

//ikea has been fined 100s of thousands for opening on sunday in paris.//

Not fined by the RCC, but by France.

//same reason Christians too many hundred years more, even though all books in it were written during the first century.---StrongAxe

Not quite because all books USED by ALL Christians were NOT written in the 1st century but in the 2 century or odd context

So those books didn't make it into the Canon of the NT when compiled in the 5 century by the RCC.

But the Canon used by Jesus Christ time should be good enough for US Christians.

I can understand by the Jews in 100A.D rejecting the canon used by Jesus.

They rejected Him, so why not the Canon used by Him?
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/24/16


mike:

You wrote: the mark of the beast is enforced sunday worship

This is not possible for two reasons:
1) A mark is some kind of discernable feature (like a tattoo or similar). An enforced code of behavior is not a mark
2) There is no place on earth where it is illegal to buy unless you go to church on Sunday.

the pope has been pushing to legislate sunday worship.

And, when the Pope rules every country on the planet, your claim might be considered.

ikea has been fined 100s of thousands for opening on sunday in paris.

Sunday laws forbid buying or selling on SUNDAY but not other days, and do not force worship of anyone (e.g. the Beast) any time.
---StrongAxe on 8/24/16


\\tattoos are not the mark of the beast. the mark of the beast is enforced sunday worship - the pope has been pushing to legislate sunday worship.\\

Doesn't it bother you to say things that have NO BASIS in reality?

If the pope were behind Sunday worship, how does that explain ancient churches in the east, such as India, which NEVER had any contact with the pope having SUNDAY as their main day of worship?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/23/16




But it proves there was a canon used by the Jews at Jesus' time.

Even if it did, it does not define what that canon WAS.

I so why would the Jew have to wait until 100 AD for a set of canons?

For the same reason Christians too many hundred years more, even though all books in it were written during the first century.
---StrongAxe on 8/23/16


//Luke did not enumerate WHICH scriptures those were.//

Correct

//Also, Jesus pointed out all scriptural references to himself//

But it proves there was a canon used by the Jews at Jesus' time.
I so why would the Jew have to wait until 100 AD for a set of canons?
(Which logically means they are rejecting the set of canons used by Jesus and their fathers)

Plus, you can't claim they didn't know which books.

Because the Jews are famous and good at remembering the Law, Traditions and Scrolls passed from one generation to the next generation. They have a good method system starting at a young age

//Sola Scriptura isn't MY Theory. I have been criticizing it for years.//

I APOLOGIZE.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/23/16


Nicole_Lacey:

Luke did not enumerate WHICH scriptures those were. Also, Jesus pointed out all scriptural references to himself, but it doesn't say he also quoted from books that didn't talk about him (e.g. Esther, Tobit, Judith, Susanna and the Elders, etc.). One can conjecture all one wants whether those were canon, but Luke 24:27 won't answer one way or other.

Sola Scriptura isn't MY Theory. I have been criticizing it for years.

The big problems with traditions are they cannot be corroborated (i.e. they witness to themselves), and they are subject to continuous mutation as they are passed down. At least scriptures only mutate when copied. We have manuscripts thousands of years old, but few witnesses over a century.
---StrongAxe on 8/23/16


//There WAS NO firm Jewish canon during the time of Jesus-Strongaxe

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He(Jesus) interpreted to them what referred to Him (Jesus)in all the Scriptures

It can't be the NT. So it came from some type of Jewish CANON books of Scriptures that had the account of Moses and ALL the Prophets, not just some, but all the Prophets. Including the Prophets in Exile!

You can't follow that Elementary logic because It makes you break your 1st rule.
Sola Scriptura Theory.

Plus, only Bible ISN'T IN THE BIBLE!

2 Thessalonians 2:15 proves that theory is made up.
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by SPEECH or LETTER.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/22/16


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: So you believe the Jewish cannons used by Jesus Himself isn't good enough for the Jews in 100 A.D.?

(Canons are book collections. Cannons are artillery.) There WAS NO firm Jewish canon during the time of Jesus, just as there was no firm Christian canon at the time of Paul.

Where in the Bible states that it has to be quoted or not quoted?

Elementary logic. It's called the Principle of the Excluded Middle. EVERY book in existence is either quoted in the bible, or not (most aren't). If a book is quoted, it shows the quoter considered it important. If it is not quoted, that doesn't provide evidence either way.
---StrongAxe on 8/21/16


//What Jew would only follow parts of the OT at 100AD?-Me

The ones who formalized the canon, just like the Christians who formalized THEIR canon accepted certain books and rejected others, for reasons they believed were reasonable.//

So you believe the Jewish cannons used by Jesus Himself isn't good enough for the Jews in 100 A.D.?

//If Esther were quoted, it would be evidence for its legitimacy. Its absence is not evidence for its legitimacy, but neither is it evidence for its illegitimacy either.---StrongAxe on 8/20/16

Who made that role?

Where in the Bible states that it has to be quoted or not quoted?
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/21/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


Nicole_Lacey:

You said the "main body" of Jews ACCEPT the extra books. You did not say they ACCEPTED them. Thus, I presumed you meant NOW (i.e. 1900 years after the Jewish canon was firmly established).

What Jew would only follow parts of the OT at 100AD?

The ones who formalized the canon, just like the Christians who formalized THEIR canon accepted certain books and rejected others, for reasons they believed were reasonable.

If Esther were quoted, it would be evidence for its legitimacy. Its absence is not evidence for its legitimacy, but neither is it evidence for its illegitimacy either.
---StrongAxe on 8/20/16


Strongaxe, because the OT wasn't made NOW or in 100A.D.

Just like Martin Luther, he is born in the 16 century and decides on his OWN to remove 7 books that Christians being reading for 10 centuries? Really?

What Jew would only follow parts of the OT at 100AD?

//Also, it's curious that the Dead Sea Scrolls include copies of all OT books except Esther, but none of the deutrocanonical books, and those pre-date Jesus.---StrongAxe on 8/19/16

NO, it's curious that you didn't tear out the book of Esther from your Bible since the Dead Sea Scrolls didn't include it?

May I quote your great words:

"I used reduction ad absurdum to show your point was illogical."
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/20/16


Nicole_Lacey:

You cited: Catholic United for Faith.
Just type those words with 'Why Catholics have 7 more books in the Old Testaments than Protestants?


That article gives a plausible explanation of why the Jews rejected the extra books in AD 100. It makes no mention whatsoever about what Jews believe NOW. Can you cite any evidence that the "main" body of Jews (whatever that is), today, accepts the extra books as you claim?

Also, it's curious that the Dead Sea Scrolls include copies of all OT books except Esther, but none of the deutrocanonical books, and those pre-date Jesus.
---StrongAxe on 8/19/16


Strongaxe, I truly LOVE 'chewing the fat' with you.

Back to your errors :D,

//There are also Reconstruction Jews, but close enough.//

Good to know.

//You claim the "main" body of Jews include Apocrypha. How is that possible, as the three largest groups don't? what is this "main" body? Please cite sources.
//Apocrypha parts. I wonder why?---StrongAxe on 8/18/16

They did speak about the Apocrypha. I couldn't fit the whole page in my response.

That's why I cited the author:
Catholic United for Faith.

Just type those words with 'Why Catholics have 7 more books in the Old Testaments than Protestants?

The whole article will pull up for you.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/18/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: That's all the Jewish Community.

There are also Reconstruction Jews, but close enough. You claim the "main" body of Jews include Apocrypha. How is that possible, as the three largest groups don't? what is this "main" body? Please cite sources.

The Jewish canon was fluid until finalized around 100 A.D., long before the Christian canon was finalized. Again, since the Jewish scriptures are THE bible of the Jews, one ought to consider them to be somewhat experts on thir own scriptures. Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint frequently (in differences from the Masoretic, their quotes favor the Septuagint), but they never quoted from the Apocrypha parts. I wonder why?
---StrongAxe on 8/18/16


//Orthodox, Conservative, Reform--StrongAxe

That's all the Jewish Community.

//The Catholic Old Testatment follows the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, the Old Testament which was translated into Greek around 250 B.C. The Protestant Reformers follows the Palestinian canon of Scripture (39 books), which was not officially recognized by Jews until around 100 A.D.

Prior to Jesus time, the Jews did not have a sharply defined, universal canon of Scripture..The Palestinian and Alexandrian canons were more normative than the others, having wider acceptance among orthodox Jews, but for Jews there was no universally defined canon to include or exclude the deuterocanonical books around 100 A.D.- Catholic United for Faith
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/17/16


Nicole_Lacey:

No, I wasted ONE LINE to say that - the rest explained what, specifically, most Jews actually believe.

Orthodox, Conservative, Reform - the three most common branches.

And what is the NAME of that "MAIN" community? You keep saying that, but can you actually CITE any SOURCES? Please explain how you know this. I did.

"Trust, but verify"-Ronald Reagan?

Bravo. The Biblical standard - 2-3 witnesses. I showed where there are oodles. Please look them up, or provide your own.

I am sure the name isn't longer than 125 words.

No, but I usually spend more time whittling down one word at a time from each post to fit than initially composing them.
---StrongAxe on 8/17/16


I once did some work for a company that publishes Jewish bibles, and I know what I'm talking about.--StrongAxe

So you wasted 125 words to tell me to believe you because you know what you are talking about, but DIDN'T cite ONE NAME of the JEWISH SECT that didn't accept the non Hebrew 7 texts and additional chapters in the texts of the OT?

I am telling you that the MAIN Jewish Community has all 46 books of the OT.

You are claiming no they don't and you know the reason why they didn't.

OKAY, Ever heard of: "Trust, but verify"-Ronald Reagan?

Just Name One Sect.

I am sure the name isn't longer than 125 words.

It can't be hard for you since you have so much experience.

NAME please.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/17/16


Send a Free Sympathy Ecard


Nicole_Lacey:

The 125 word limit prevents articulating every single name everybody calls everything. I figured anyone reading could understand the obvious things I left out.

If you want to respect them, why not respect their scholarship that says there are 39 books instead of 46? (There are 24 scrolls, because they combine Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra+Nehemiah, and the 12 minor prophets into one each, adding 15 books).

No, the majority have all 46 books. You name the SMALL Sect that doesn't.

I ask again, please show your sources. Google: Jewish bible books shows otherwise. I once did some work for a company that publishes Jewish bibles, and I know what I'm talking about. What is your experience?
---StrongAxe on 8/17/16


//What they call it is not important.//

It's called RESPECT!
Calling it the OT means they acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah.
How can you make that comment?

//A small sect of Jews people have only 39 books of the OT...Can you point out any who have more?

No, the majority have all 46 books. You name the SMALL Sect that doesn't.

//Most Jews have all 46 books.
There are no Hebrew manuscripts of them.---StrongAxe on 8/16/16

Because they were in Exile and not allowed to write the manuscripts in Hebrew.

Luther rejected them because they were NOT written in Hebrew.

So how can you ask to see them in Hebrew when that is the REASON the manuscripts were rejected???
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/16/16


Also Nicole the RCC didn't exist as a separate entity till 1054 when the Great Schism happened.

So the combined Orthodox and RCC which were one church at the time were the people who chose the books of the Bible.

The RCC is changing history to fit their theology.

Cluny has the same right to say the Orthodox picked the books.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 8/16/16


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: The Jews do not call their Torah the OT.

What they call it is not important. The number does. Also, the Torah has 5 books, not 39. The Tanakh (Torah + Neviim + Ketuvim, Law + Prophets + Writings) has 39 books.

A small sect of Jews people have only 39 books of the OT.

Yes. Only the majority of Jews on the planet. Can you point out any who have more?

Most Jews have all 46 books.

Please show which "most Jews". I have never heard of ANY Jews today that include these. These aren't in Hebrew bibles. There are no Hebrew manuscripts of them.
---StrongAxe on 8/16/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


How does 76 minus 7 equal 66?---StrongAxe

GOOD ONE! THANKS, I meant 73

The Jews do not call their Torah the OT.

A small sect of Jews people have only 39 books of the OT.

Most Jews have all 46 books. Also they have chapters 10-16 of Esther, Daniel 3:24-90 (Song of the Three Young Men), Daniel 13 (the story of Susannah), and Daniel 14 (Bel and the Dragon) of the Old Testament Besides the 7 books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, 1st and 2nd books of Maccabees.

Still the point is that the Tradition for ALL Christians between the Centuries of the 5th and until 16th century had all 46 BOOKS of the OT until Luther was born.

Another Catholic, ex Priest who compiled your 66 book Bible.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/16/16


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: NO, Jesus' Church the RCC SELECTED all 76 books of the Bible which held for 10 centuries (5th to 16th) until an Ex RC Priest Martin Luther discarded 7 books of the OT which gives you all your 66 book Bible.

How does 76 minus 7 equal 66?

Also, the Jews themselves (who ought to be experts on the OT) do not accept the Apocrypha either. The tradition of rejecting them is MUCH older than Martin Luther.
---StrongAxe on 8/16/16


\\Ex RC Priest Martin Luther discarded 7 books of the OT which gives you all your 66 book Bible.\\

Actually, he translated them in his German Bible.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/16/16


NO typo, Karen
The Bible didn't fall from Heaven in a nice leather binder.

Where do you all think the table of contents came from?

Somehow the letters written to different Churches from Paul came together on it's own.

Of all the Apostles' Gospels, only 2 of the 12 ended up in the Bible(Matthew and John).
One Gospel from a Physician (Luke) and a Disciple of Peter (Mark) came together without any guidance from ANYONE?
And all this occurred 4 centuries after the death of all the Writers.

NO, Jesus' Church the RCC SELECTED all 76 books of the Bible which held for 10 centuries (5th to 16th) until an Ex RC Priest Martin Luther discarded 7 books of the OT which gives you all your 66 book Bible.
Still a Catholic.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/15/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


But the OT is NOT the entire Bible, KarenD.

Besides, most Protestants have a Bible with a big hole in it--a holey Bible, if you like, and not the whole Holy Bible.

Who on earth determined what should be in the NT?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/15/16


The Old Testament was before the church. Jesus quoted from it quite often.
---KarenD on 8/14/16


John Calvin wrote this.

From ONE HUNDRED APHORISMS, book two: #22. Christ is exhibited to men by the Law and by the Gospel.
#23. The Law is threefold:
Ceremonial,
Judicial,
Moral.
The use of the Ceremonial Law is repealed, its effect is perpetual.
The Judicial or Political Law was peculiar to the Jews, and has been set aside,
while that universal justice which is described in the Moral Law remains. The latter, or Moral Law, the object of which is to cherish and maintain godliness and righteousness, is perpetual, and is incumbent on all.
24. The use of the Moral Law is threefold. The first use shows our weakness, unrighteousness, and condemnation, not that we may despair, but that we may flee to Christ.
---Samuelbb7 on 8/14/16


Karen D, which came first in time: the Church or the Bible?
---Cluny on 8/14/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


Nicole....Please tell me that was a typo when you wrote that the Bible gets its authority from the RCC.
---KarenD on 8/13/16


Darlene_1:

You wrote: The handwriting of ordinances which was against us we see in the New Testament was nailed to the Cross with Christ. That should answer any questions about what we do or don't do of the Ordinances in the Old Testament.
Amen

The problem is, that there are many people today who believe that those ordinances were divided into two piles, by some obscure method, and one pile was nailed to the cross, but the other pile must still be obeyed meticulously. You just can't convince these people otherwise.
---StrongAxe on 8/13/16
And again I say Amen. And that's a pity
---josef on 8/14/16


Darlene_1:

You wrote: The handwriting of ordinances which was against us we see in the New Testament was nailed to the Cross with Christ. That should answer any questions about what we do or don't do of the Ordinances in the Old Testament.

The problem is, that there are many people today who believe that those ordinances were divided into two piles, by some obscure method, and one pile was nailed to the cross, but the other pile must still be obeyed meticulously. You just can't convince these people otherwise.
---StrongAxe on 8/13/16


//Nicole_Lacey:You wrote: Also Priests and Pastors are not telling their congregations tattoos are wrong
Yes, according to Leviticus,....Unless you're willing to forbid all of those, picking and choosing which parts of Leviticus to obey defeats the point.---StrongAxe on 8/10/16

You pick and choose from Leviticus 19 everyday.

Follow verses 1-4, but NOT verses 5-10
Follow verses 11-19
NOT verses 20-25,26?,29
Follow verses 31-37

But 37 states to OBSERVE ALL.

We BOTH pick and choose.

How did you change the words Priests/Pastors to Leviticus?

That's why the Bible gets it's Authority from the RCC which She gets Her Authority from Her Head Jesus Christ.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/13/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


The handwriting of ordinances which was against us we see in the New Testament was nailed to the Cross with Christ. That should answer any questions about what we do or don't do of the Ordinances in the Old Testament.
---Darlene_1 on 8/13/16


Samuelbb7:

The question is, though, is Leviticus as set of helpful advice that we are free to follow or ignore, or is it as set of immutable laws that we are COMMANDED to obey? There is still much disagreement on this subject.

There is much of it that was practical in that day and age, but obsolete now (e.g. abstaining from pork prevented trichinosis - not necessary with modern cooking methods).

Do you make your wife and teenage daughters go and live in the garage for a few days every month? According to Leviticus, you should, yet I can't imagine ANY Christians ANYWHERE that still follow that. Same with no shaving - most American Christians ignore that.
---StrongAxe on 8/12/16


Correct there is a lot of practical advice in Leviticus that we should follow. Do tattoos fall in that category. I think so.

Think of it this way. When you buy a car there is a good way to maintain it and a bad way. If you read the owners manual it tells you the good way.

Leviticus is part of our owners manual. True parts are about the Temple. But I have heard some good sermons on the Temple and how it points to Jesus.

Timothy 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:..
---Samuelbb7 on 8/12/16


Rita_H:

I frequently summarize and shorten things on here because the ridiculous 125-word limit here (unlike
any other forum I am aware of) makes it difficult to say everything that needs to be said.

So, the blended fabric rule is reduced to "common sense". Can we ignore it if we have a way to stop shrinkage, or must we still obey Thou Shalt Not Blend?

That still doesn't answer the question of why most western Christians (and pastors) are clean shaven. Again, one can cite practicality, but to do so, one must admit that Leviticus is just "sensible advice" (as you put it) to us and not inviolate laws - and if so, the same would apply to tattoos.
---StrongAxe on 8/12/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


Strongaxe I'll pick up on just one of your points (about blended fabrics). Do you realise that the bible actually mentions those TWO fabrics (look it up)? So many Christians make statements such as 'we should not be wearing garments made of polyester/cotton because those are blended fabrics'. The bible does not state 'blended fabrics'. It gives a very valid reason for not mixing the TWO which ARE named. One shrinks and the other doesn't so the garment (once washed) would be useless.

The bible even gives us sensible advice about our laundry - isn't that wonderful? Let's not exaggerate and tell others that it says something which it does NOT say.
---Rita_H on 8/12/16


Rita_H:

You wrote: God has already told us that He does NOT want us to have tattoos so He should not need to repeat that.

No. God has already told the JEWS that he does not want THEM to have tattoos. He also told them not shave their beards, eat pork or shrimp, wear blended fabrics, or touch pig skin. The next time you see a clean-shaven pastor in a polyester blend suit inviting his congregation to a ham-and-eggs Easter brunch before an afternoon football game, you might ask him why he chooses to condemn one of these while feeling free to do the others. (In fact, there are many churches that REQUIRE men to be shaved).
---StrongAxe on 8/11/16


Amy to quote you
"If God tells you they are wrong then teach your children appropriately."

"They are bringing people to Christ. I personally think God is more interested in bringing men to Christ than whether they wear a tattoo or not."

God has already told us that He does NOT want us to have tattoos so He should not need to repeat that.

Yes, there are people bringing others to God who are not fully obeying God in many ways but that does not mean we should condone (or make excuses) for that. If someone has a tattoo before being saved it is a different matter from having one done after being saved as that is total disobedience to His Word.
---Rita_H on 8/11/16


/Yes, according to Leviticus, tattoos are wrong - along with shaving, pork, shrimp, blended fabrics, touching the flesh of a pig (thus, football), etc. Unless you're willing to forbid all of those, picking and choosing which parts of Leviticus to obey defeats the point.\-StrongAxe on 8/10/16
-Agreed
---micha9344 on 8/11/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


It is just as I said Leviticus is speaking of not cutting or tattooing for the dead,both connected with the dead. Or, is a conjunction used to connect alternative terms for the same thing. Or, is also used to connect words,phrases,or clauses which represent alternatives. I don't like tattoos myself but even so I will not judge those who do them without being connected with the dead. God is their judge not people.
---Darlene_1 on 8/11/16


I think tatoos are up to the individual's
Faith. If God tells you they are wrong then teach your children appropriately. If God doesn't tell you anything then go with it. I personally for myself don't believe in tatoos and told my kids they could have one after they moved out. My daughter had her nose pierced she works for billy Graham in Thai. Her husband has tatoos all up his arms. They are bringing people to Christ. I personally think God is more interested in bringing men to Christ then whether they wear a tatoo or not.
---Amy on 8/11/16


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: Also Priests and Pastors are not telling their congregations tattoos are wrong.

Yes, according to Leviticus, tattoos are wrong - along with shaving, pork, shrimp, blended fabrics, touching the flesh of a pig (thus, football), etc. Unless you're willing to forbid all of those, picking and choosing which parts of Leviticus to obey defeats the point.
---StrongAxe on 8/10/16


Why are so many Christians now getting tattoos?- Mike

Because many Christians don't read the Bible.

Also Priests and Pastors are not telling their congregations tattoos are wrong.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/9/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


Steveng:

You wrote: According to the bible our bodies are the temple of God which houses our spirit.

Yes - and whas is inside the temple is infinitely more important than the outside. Paul said improving the body benefits little. Jesus condemned the Pharisees, calling them whitewashed tombs - beautiful on the outside (that wasn't all that important), but dead inside (that was).

Defacing the temple of God is wrong no matter how "wholesome" the message.

The apostles gave a very short list of prohibitions for new gentile converts - e.g. abstinence from fornication, blood, and meat sacrificed to idols. Tattoos were notably absent on this prohibition list.
---StrongAxe on 8/10/16


StrongAxe wrote: "True, but our superficial body matters little. It's what's inside that is REALLY important."

According to the bible our bodies are the temple of God which houses our spirit.

StrongAxe wrote: "Some people get tattoos with otherwise wholesome messages (e.g. "<3 Mom", a cross, scripture quotes, etc.)"

You have go to be kidding. Defacing the temple of God is wrong no matter how "wholesome" the message. Our bodies belong to God.
---Steveng on 8/9/16


///Why destroy the temple of God (each of our bodies) with graffiti.---Steveng on 8/6/16///

Good point Steveng. The devil is always hellbent on marring & defacing God's creation, property that doesn't belong to him.
---Leon on 8/7/16


Steveng wrote: Why destroy the temple of God (each of our bodies) with graffiti.

True, but our superficial body matters little. It's what's inside that is REALLY important. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for the very opposite - being clean on the inside, and tombs on the inside.

Leon wrote: I question why any Christian, who knows he/she is made in the image of the living God, would pierce/cut/tattoo their flesh with dead (life-like, nonetheless lifeless) images.

Some people get tattoos with otherwise wholesome messages (e.g. "<3 Mom", a cross, scripture quotes, etc.)

I find tattoos from Leviticus ironic - the same book that itself condemns tattoos. (Google image search: tattoo leviticus 19:28)!
---StrongAxe on 8/7/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


Why destroy the temple of God (each of our bodies) with graffiti.
---Steveng on 8/6/16


///What the verse actually says in Leviticus is not to be cut or get tattoos for the dead. It isn't even talking about tattoos one gets when it isn't for the dead which is most tattoos that are gotten. [?] If memory serves me right being cut or tattooed for the dead was a practice of the Pagans.---Darlene_1 on 8/6/16///

Darlene: People today do get tattoos for the dead, i.e., dead loved ones ~ movie, recording, sports, political & wartime idols/gods.

I question why any Christian, who knows he/she is made in the image of the living God, would pierce/cut/tattoo their flesh with dead (life-like, nonetheless lifeless) images.
---Leon on 8/6/16


"Why are so many Christians now getting tattoos?"

So that they can one day answer embarrassing questions from their grandchildren.


---Jerry6593 on 8/7/16


Correct Strong Ax. Many Christians today don't read the Bible. Especially the Old Testament. When my daughter went to HBU she found that many of her fellow students have never read the Old Testament even though many had gone to church school all their lives.
---Samuelbb7 on 8/7/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


Darlene_1:

Lev 19:28:
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.

You wrote: What the verse actually says in Leviticus is not to be cut or get tattoos for the dead.

Not quite. It says (not to be cut for the dead) or (get tattoos). ALL tattoos were forbidden.
---StrongAxe on 8/6/16


What the verse actually says in Leviticus is not to be cut or get tattoos for the dead. It isn't even talking about tattoos one gets when it isn't for the dead which is most tattoos that are gotten. If memory serves me right being cut or tattooed for the dead was a practice of the Pagans.
---Darlene_1 on 8/6/16


good point Strong ax

Our outward look shows our inward desires. When a man dresses like a pimp. That is what people will think he is. The Jews were to wear a blue ribbon around the edge of their garments to show they were dedicated to the LORD. Should we not show by dressing modestly that we are dedicated to the LORD.
---Samuelbb7 on 8/5/16


Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith (not by obeying the Law).
Gal 3:25 (GNB) Now that the time for faith is here, the Law is no longer in charge of us.

FAITH is how we are yoked to Jesus. Only those without faith still have the schoolmaster (the law) as their connection to Christ.

Rom 2:15 . . . the law written in their hearts . . .
Eph_3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith . . .

The discipline and teachings of the schoolmaster have been replaced by the discipline and teachings of FAITH.
---aservant on 8/5/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


Karen

you have to figure it out. why don't you google it.
---mike on 8/5/16


mike4879:

You wrote: I consider tattoos to be pagan. The Bible says not to get tattoos. (Leviticus 19:28) In the New Testament, anyone that receives the mark of the beast is not to be saved. (Revelation 14:9-10)

The Jews were forbidden from modifying their bodies (tattoos, cutting, trimming beards or locks on the corners of their hair), and from many other things (like eating pork and shrimp). Many Christians trim their locks, shave their beards, and eat pork and shrimp. Saying one is fine but not the other is cafeteria Christianity - picking some laws to obey while ignoring others you don't like.

Until the Beast is revealed, and nobody can buy nor sell without it, no tattoo is the Mark of the beast.
---StrongAxe on 8/4/16


Does outward appearance have anything to do with salvation?
When people learn that it is not the outward appearance that pleases God, they are growing in grace
Grace exposes people for who they truly are in the flesh: selfish, apathetic, spiritual adulterers.
Grace changes us from the inside out, by crucifying our old man and making us alive in Christ. Grace kills sin, so that we can live a life where sin has no power over us, regardless of our looks.
---michael_e on 8/4/16


mike....Scripture and verse where mark of the beast is Sunday worship enforced. You cannot find it!!!!
---KarenD on 8/4/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


I am shocked that so many "Christians" are getting tattoos today. Those who are letting their children do this are unbelievable. Yes, tattoos are pagan.
---KarenD on 8/4/16


What you consider bears no resemblance to reality.

Among Ethiopian Christians, the oldest Orthodox Church in the world after that of Jerusalem, it's considered an expression of faith to have a beautiful cross tattooed on the right hand or forehead so one can NOT receive the mark of the beast.

The Coptic Orthodox of Egypt have newborn babes given a tattoo of a Cross on the right thumb as soon as possible so they won't be kidnapped and raised as mahometans.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/4/16


The only tattoos I would consider "appropriate" is ones that might be needed for radiation therapy, where the radiologist would have to focus on exactly the same spot each time. Otherwise, no way.
---Monk_Brendan on 8/4/16


tattoos are not the mark of the beast. the mark of the beast is enforced sunday worship - the pope has been pushing to legislate sunday worship. ikea has been fined 100s of thousands for opening on sunday in paris. you cannot buy or sell. tattoos has been before there was a church.
---mike on 8/4/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.