Questions Wanted RE: Tattoos, Piercings, etc.

[BornAgainChristian1]

Leaving aside what you or I might choose to call pagan traditions, maybe you don't after all, as someone who is not an Old Testament Jew in the land under the law, see that Leviticus 19.27 applies to you?

'Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.'

Again I don't trim my beard according to pagan rituals. So which OT laws are still in effect in the NT?

 

[Vicomte13]

I have no problem with my approach but you seem to have a rather large one when someone won't agree with you.

Pax.

 

[tickingclocker]

I agree with you that it really is the crux. I agree that that we cannot parse the law. I agree that Jesus did stated that not a letter of the Law would pass away until it was all completed.

The thing I've tried - so far without success - to get people to focus upon is the fact - not the speculation, the actual written fact, that there are TWO sets of laws at work, and that only ONE set of those laws applies to Christians.

"The Law" when Jews such as Jesus or Paul, Peter or the Apostles refer to it, is a translation of a Greek word which is a translation of the Hebrew word "Torah". It does not refer to all laws, all rules, all regulations everywhere. It refers to a very specific body of rules, given as a contract by God at a specific place (Mount Sinai) to a specific people (Hebrews who were there). On its own terms it only applied to them and their descendants, and it only ever did.

On its own written terms the only thing that the Law EVER promised was that the people under the contract, the lineal, circumcised descendants of Jacob who were standing at Mt. Sinai would receive and securely hold a family farm in the land of Canaan, and only for as long as they obeyed The Law.

That is IT. That is ALL that "The Law" EVER promised, or EVER stood for.

Now, Christians all the way back have been misunderstanding this fact - which is a written fact - the Torah SAYS what its terms are, who it applies to, and what they get.

Complete obedience to the law, PERFECT obedience, never, ever promised eternal life. It did not before Jesus, and it did not after Jesus either. Jesus completed The Law, for the Jews, by demonstrating what it was pointing towards. However, Jesus said he did not destroy The Law or change The Law, that it would never be changed until the end of the world.

What THAT means is that The Law NEVER became something that had to do with eternal life, or Heaven, or anything other than its original terms: Jews, only, who follow it all, in this life, only, get a physical farm in the land of Canaan, only, in this life, only. There is no covenant that says that if one follows the whole law of Moses, one is saved and goes to Heaven. SCRIPTURE NEVER SAYS THAT. NOT EVER. It doesn't even SUGGEST it.

The Law, properly stated, is ONLY the Law of Moses, and the Law of Moses never promised ANYTHING regarding life after death. The Law of Moses only EVER applied to Jews, in THIS life, and it only EVER promised a FARM - a plot of farmland - in a specific land - Israel - during THIS life only. And only if it were all followed. Nothing more and nothing less.

So, when Christians talk about picking and choosing in "The Law", they may as well be talking about choosing which of the laws of the Japanese Empire they are going to obey. If they're not also Japanese, the laws of the Japanese Empire have NOTHING TO DO WITH the laws that Christians are to obey.

What furthers the confusion is that the early Christians, almost everybody that Jesus and the Apostles addressed, was ALSO a Jew, and so The Law - of Moses - actually MEANT something TO THEM. But it NEVER MEANT ANYTHING to a Gentile, neither before Jesus nor afterwards. The Ten Commandments are included in this. The Ten Commandments given at Mt. Sinai never ever applied to anybody but Jews. They did not apply to Christians, and Jesus did not bring the Ten Commandments to Christians.

Rather, some of the laws that God gave all of mankind BEFORE Sinai - the law against murder given to Noah - that still applies (NOT because it's one of the Ten Commandments, because the Ten Commandments apply to nobody but Jews - God included that general law in the Ten Commandments, but its authority over US is because God gave it to the world).
If a law is in the Torah - The Law - it doesn't apply to us at all, never did, and never will. THat was a contract made between Hebrews and God, and we're not parties to it. NONE of it applies to us. It's not a matter of picking and choosing. NONE of it makes any difference. Your neighbor has a contract with his bank, a mortgage on his house. Those terms and conditions are between him and the bank. If YOU fully do everything required under his mortgage, follow all of its restrictions, etc., you get NOTHING, because it's not YOUR mortgage. It's his. You never have had, do not have, and never WILL have any rights under, or duties under, your neighbor's mortgage. That contract binds HIM, but it has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

That that's "The Law". It's a contract between Israelites and God. NONE OF IT ever applied to Christians, unless they were Jews.

Most of the Christians in the New Testament WERE Jews, and sorting out for themselves that the Law of Moses had NOTHING TO DO with being a Christian was hard for them, for it meant effectively apostasy from their cultural covenant. Many tried to straddle the two worlds, and insisted that Christians who were Gentiles had to become Jews, meaning that Christians were under The Law.

But Jesus never said anything remotely like that.

So, the first big concepts are that "The Law" when called that, in the New Testament, MEANS the Law of Moses, and that the Law of Moses is COMPLETELY INAPPLICABLE to anybody who is not a party to the contract. Gentiles are not. They don't become parties by becoming Christians. It only applies to Jews. And even if JEWS follow The Law (which is The Law of Moses) perfectly, that does not have ANYTHING TO DO with life after death and final judgment. Those things are not part of The Law, and Jesus didn't graft them onto The Law. Quite the opposite: he said that The Law would not change AT ALL until the end of the world.

Jesus' New Covenant is COMPLETELY NEW. It is not something grafted onto the Law of Moses. That's the whole point of Jesus' parable of the old and new wineskins. Christianity is new wine, and it is placed in new wineskins. It is only related to the Law of Moses because the Law of Moses mentally prepared the Jews to be the standard bearer for the New Covenant.

I keep harping on this point because it is so important. The New Testament recounts JEWS struggling with what to do with the old Law, the Law of Moses, and coming to different conclusions, referring back to that law for inspiration, but finding new things and issues. It shows us how the Apostles, who were all Jews, came to the realization that The Law was dead as far as Gentiles were concerned. But even the Apostles, being Jews, were not particularly skilled lawyers. They grasped that things were different under the New Covenant, but none of them ever spoke out in the Scriptures the REASON why Gentiles did not need to follow The Law: because they were never subject to it in the first place!

This would have been hard for a Jew to admit, because the whole Jewish world was structured around that law, and the Jews had grafted on top of that law their own traditions of life after death and resurrection, but unless one includes books such as Enoch and the Maccabbees in the Old Testament, one cannot find Old Testament Scriptural promises of eternal life that have any clarity. Certainly one cannot find any such things in the Torah ("The Law").

And this brings us to the second major point, "The Law" in the New Testament, that we are freed from, is specifically the Law of Moses, the Torah. We are NOT freed from LAW as a general principle. For Jesus also gives an extensive body of law under the New Covenant, law that must be obeyed on pain of hellfire. Forget the farm in Israel - what's at stake under the law of the New Covenant is eternal life.

There is "The Law", which is the Torah, the Law of Moses, and it does NOT apply to Gentiles (and never did). THIS is the law that is called "The Law" by the New Testament figures. But there is ANOTHER Law in the New Testament, the Law of Jesus. It consists of his precepts and the stern warnings he gives about hellfire for certain acts of commission and omission. Those laws are different from The Law, but they are much more important, powerful and impressive than the mere old "Law", of Moses, for the Law of Moses only ever applied to maybe 1% of the world's population and not to anybody else. The law of Jesus applies to EVERYBODY, whether they believe it or not. THAT law IS mandatory. If one breaks IT, one faces damnation unless forgiven.

So, when I see these efforts to muck around in the Law of Moses, I try to set the record straight based on the Scriptures themselves. It clears so much freight when one realizes that the Old Testament does NOT provide law for the Christian. It clears away some really dangerous delusions when a Christian realizes that he IS under law - the Law of Christ - just not under "THE Law", which is the Law of Moses.

Freedom scares some people, even when it comes to freedom in Christ. They'd much rather have walls and clearly defined behavioral guidelines as familiar touchstones instead. (Why so many cling to OT guidelines.) Give them a list of do's and don'ts and their faith is content. This is the lazy Christian who does not wish to think about "working out his own salvation". Or, as someone once described them: they are the black or white perfectionists of the spiritual set.

Those excited by being given freedom in Christ know all they will ever need... is Jesus Christ.

 

[rjs330]

Freedom scares some people, even when it comes to freedom in Christ. They'd much rather have walls and clearly defined behavioral guidelines as familiar touchstones instead. (Why so many cling to OT guidelines.) Give them a list of do's and don'ts and their faith is content. This is the lazy Christian who does not wish to think about "working out his own salvation". Or, as someone once described them: they are the black or white perfectionists of the spiritual set.

Those excited by being given freedom in Christ know all they will ever need... is Jesus Christ.

I don't think they are lazy Christians. And I don't think,they are scared either. To call them such things kind of violates what Paul says in Romans. We are all unique people with our own personalities and our own walk with Christ. Some personalities do,better with strong boundaries while others do better with less. And Paul's letter to the Romans when talking about meat offered to idols is a clear picture of how Christians differ in their walk. We are not to judge or look down at each other for such things.

That being said freedom as a believer is not absolute. We are not free to sin. And sin is described very clearly in the NT writings of the apostles and in Jesus words. In the New Covenant sinful behavior is actually expanded upon from the OT. While we are not under the law we are challenged to live right in our thoughts and motives as well,as our actions. BUT the good news is because we have Christ in us by the Holy Spirit we have the ability to put our thoughts under submission. The OT folks just had to try in their own strength to control their actions. We have the power of the Holy Spirit to not only control our actions but our thoughts and motives as well. And we have the grace of God to cover our sins when we fail. Praise God for that!

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[faroukfarouk]

Again I don't trim my beard according to pagan rituals. So which OT laws are still in effect in the NT?

For the New Testament believer, Galatians makes it clear that grace is sovereign; and Romans refers to 'the obedience of faith'.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Freedom scares some people, even when it comes to freedom in Christ. They'd much rather have walls and clearly defined behavioral guidelines as familiar touchstones instead. (Why so many cling to OT guidelines.) Give them a list of do's and don'ts and their faith is content. This is the lazy Christian who does not wish to think about "working out his own salvation". Or, as someone once described them: they are the black or white perfectionists of the spiritual set.

Those excited by being given freedom in Christ know all they will ever need... is Jesus Christ.

...but didn't you realize that the young man with studs in his ears is supposed to be persecuted???

I agree about all the believer's satisfaction being in Christ!

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

For the New Testament believer, Galatians makes it clear that grace is sovereign; and Romans refers to 'the obedience of faith'.

So then you think grace allows you to worship pagan gods? Oh wait this is what God's word says about abusing grace.....

Romans 6:1-7 1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7For he that is dead is freed from sin.


1 John 1 : 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and truth is not in us.
9 If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say, we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

James 1:13-15 13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

So as you can see grace isn't what you think it is.

 

[faroukfarouk]

So then you think grace allows you to worship pagan gods?

Putting words into my mouth...

 

[RETS]

Question for everyone:

If something that originates within paganism/rebellion/sin is never able to be used for God, should we ever use it again?

For instance, a man learns to be a mechanic while he is a practicing Satanist; when he becomes a Christian, should he cease being a mechanic also?

Or as another example, a woman becomes a tax accountant while also being a part of a coven; should she cease her accountant practice when she is found and redeemed by Christ?

BornAgainChristian1, I am especially interested in your answer.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Putting words into my mouth...

Actually you gave a dissertation about how grace in some way justify's things forbidden in the bible e.g. tattoo's. Why don't we take Jesus's example on how to teach and preach His word which never included tattoo's.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Question for everyone:

If something that originates within paganism/rebellion/sin is never able to be used for God, should we ever use it again?

For instance, a man learns to be a mechanic while he is a practicing Satanist; when he becomes a Christian, should he cease being a mechanic also?

Or as another example, a woman becomes a tax accountant while also being a part of a coven; should she cease her accountant practice when she is found and redeemed by Christ?

BornAgainChristian1, I am especially interested in your answer.

Apples and oranges....where in God's word is making an honest living forbidden? Where s God's word are tattoo's forbidden. I rest my case.

 

[RETS]

Apples and oranges....where in God's word is making an honest living forbidden? Where s God's word are tattoo's forbidden. I rest my case.

Perhaps I'm simply not seeing it then, BAC1. Elsewhere, you have argued that tattooing shouldn't happen because it came from pagan roots- So too do my examples; the knowledge they attained to perform their trades they gained while literal pagans. It would stand to reason, then, that while their trades may not so much be rooted in evil, the knowledge they gained certainly is. How is this different?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Actually you gave a dissertation about how grace in some way justify's things forbidden in the bible ...

False; this was not my intention. Again, putting words in my mouth.

 

[Goodbook]

as long as its not satanic symbols you promoting.
And why not just do fake tattoos, that way, if you change your mind, its not permanent.

As for piercings, meh, they just close up again anyway. They are not for everyone, and God's word doesn't say you HAVE to have a tattoo or piercing to be a christian. But it does say to dress modestly, (or at least, wear clothes) cos you know, God clothes us in his righteousness. He didn't so go nude and just wear tattoos like some people seem to want to do.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Perhaps I'm simply not seeing it then, BAC1. Elsewhere, you have argued that tattooing shouldn't happen because it came from pagan roots- So too do my examples; the knowledge they attained to perform their trades they gained while literal pagans. It would stand to reason, then, that while their trades may not so much be rooted in evil, the knowledge they gained certainly is. How is this different?

So then by your claim everything they do and say is of pagan origins because of their pagan beliefs and to take that one ridiculous step farther their pagan gods bought them into existence. Perhaps you even believe the air they breath is of pagan origin?

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

False; this was not my intention. Again, putting words in my mouth.

Then if it wasn't your intention why give your dissertation attempting to justify tattoo's when God forbids them? Perhaps you can produce scripture where God changed His mind about them?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So then by your claim everything they do and say is of pagan origins because of their pagan beliefs and to take that one ridiculous step farther their pagan gods bought then into existence. Perhaps you even believe the air they breath is of pagan origin?

When you start saying everything is pagan, then everything becomes pagan. If X is pagan because pagans did it, then Y would also be pagan if pagans did it.

So, yeah, if that's the kind of logic one wants to employ then it's perfectly legitimate at that point to say that the air we breathe, or the act of breathing itself, is pagan. It's certainly no less than pagan than all sorts of other things that are called "pagan" around here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

When you start saying everything is pagan, then everything becomes pagan. If X is pagan because pagans did it, then Y would also be pagan if pagans did it.

So, yeah, if that's the kind of logic one wants to employ then it's perfectly legitimate at that point to say that the air we breathe, or the act of breathing itself, is pagan. It's certainly no less than pagan than all sorts of other things that are called "pagan" around here.

-CryptoLutheran

I said nothing of the sort that is simply one of your deceptions. You seem to like to twist my words to justify what God said not to do. You really should pay better attention to both sides of the conversation. BTW I was giving an example of how ridiculous some claims are including yours. But then again you ignored that word "ridiculous" didn't you?

 

[RETS]

So then by your claim everything they do and say is of pagan origins because of their pagan beliefs and to take that one ridiculous step farther their pagan gods bought them into existence. Perhaps you even believe the air they breath is of pagan origin?

Well, yeah, when you say it like that it makes sense; thing is I honestly thought that was basically your argument...

So, then... Context is important, I guess. Thanks, BAC1!

 

[seashale76]

I do actually have a question: How can one be perfectly fine with having tattoos and yet have a problem iconography? Don't say it doesn't happen, because I know there are a few people with tattoos around here that have expressed their dislike of icons in the past. People will put words and images of a religious nature on themselves and want people to look at them to be a 'conversation starter'- yet will actually have an issue with icons.