Are we still bound by the commands in Leviticus or not?

[OllieFranz]

From a thread in Ethics and Morality:

Im confused on something.

I was talking with someone via PM and tattoos came up. They said that they felt tattoos were sinful because it was desecrating the temple of the body. But...that logic can be applied to anything we do to ourselves. Tanning, eating bad food, piercings, etc etc. So why are tattoos the only thing that are bad?

And yes I know about the "markings uppon the flesh" passage of the bible. However this is a specific practice that deals with cutting your skin when someone dies, something that was part of the tribal culture of the time when the bible was written and does not refer to the modern practice of tattooing.

So why is tattooing immoral?

In the entire thread which follows, although many posters explained why they thought tattooing was a bad idea, no one (at least at the time I wrote this) has tried to defend the idea that tattoos are wrong on the basis of Leviticus 19:28. Why is this command in Leviticus, which comes in the short chapter between them, treated so differently from the command in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13?

 

[davedjy]

Those who use Leviticus, must uphold all of it, or they are cherry picking.

 

[BigBadWlf]

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:36-40

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35


So no. We live under a new covanant

 

[BreadAlone]

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:36-40

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35


So no. We live under a new covanant

The moral law is not a covenant.

 

[BreadAlone]

Those who use Leviticus, must uphold all of it, or they are cherry picking.

That conclusion is based on a faulty understanding of the three types of laws found in Leviticus.

 

[BigBadWlf]

The moral law is not a covenant.

I take it this is some reference to the claim you have made multiple times about some sort of division in the old testament law, divisions into moral, civil and ceremonial laws.

I have asked you multiple times to biblically substantiate these divisions.
I have asked for chapter and verse that delineates which laws are which.

You have never answered.

I will ask again.

 

[BigBadWlf]

That conclusion is based on a faulty understanding of the three types of laws found in Leviticus.

Please provide scriptural evidence that there is such a division.

 

[BreadAlone]

Please provide scriptural evidence that there is such a division.

The Bible never says: here is the list of laws categorically arranged. It also never compiles a list of the sacraments (doesn't even mention that word) or mention the name "trinity". It's something that schollars and theologians have been able to, through contextual and open studies, decipher these things. Your blatent shoving aside of this explanation reveals your lack of care in learning the truth..

 

[Brieuse]

The Bible never says: here is the list of laws categorically arranged. It also never compiles a list of the sacraments (doesn't even mention that word) or mention the name "trinity". It's something that schollars and theologians have been able to, through contextual and open studies, decipher these things. Your blatent shoving aside of this explanation reveals your lack of care in learning the truth..

In other words, man not God decided which laws should go or stay.

 

[BreadAlone]

In other words, man not God decided which laws should go or stay.

In other words, no. Humans examined the word of God and when taking the Bible contextually and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not their logic that wants homosexuality to be "okay", they realized that the distinctions exist.

 

[OllieFranz]

OK, assuming that you can make the distinction, into which class do the following commands fall? (Note: they were chosen because there have been, and still are, branches of the Church that teach that they are "moral laws" that must still be obeyed.)

The ban on cross-dressing (Deut 22:5)

The ban on tatoos, brands and cuts (Lev 19:28)

The sabbath laws (Lev 23:3ff)

According to Acts 15, there are only four Mosaic Law commands that are still banned, and Paul's letters seem to indicate that two of those continued to be banned only because to declare them no longer binding would shock the sensibilities of some of the breteren, causing them to stumble.

 

[davedjy]

That conclusion is based on a faulty understanding of the three types of laws found in Leviticus.

Not really...the Leviticus ban on homosexuality IS disputed where it falls among Bible Scholars...(ceremonial or moral). Regardless, you don't have any proof that there is a division, have you ever read Leviticus and the way it was put together?

 

[BreadAlone]

Not really...the Leviticus ban on homosexuality IS disputed where it falls among Bible Scholars...(ceremonial or moral). Regardless, you don't have any proof that there is a division, have you ever read Leviticus and the way it was put together?

I don't see what it possibly has to do with anything religious..what "shadow of things to come" was there in calling homosexuality an abomination? As to your latter question, I don't see how you could formulate an opinion about something without studying it. (On a related note, did you know that most of the scriptural quotes in the NT come from the Pentateuch? I find that strange considering people's tendency to say the OT laws are ALL meaningless to us today..)

 

[BigBadWlf]

The Bible never says: here is the list of laws categorically arranged. It also never compiles a list of the sacraments (doesn't even mention that word) or mention the name "trinity". It's something that schollars and theologians have been able to, through contextual and open studies, decipher these things. Your blatent shoving aside of this explanation reveals your lack of care in learning the truth..

The truth being that there is no division of the old testament law into moral, civil and ceremonial laws as you claim.

I have asked you multiple times to biblically substantiate these divisions and you are now admitting that there are no such things.


I have asked for chapter and verse that delineates which laws are which and now you admit there are no such things.

 

[BigBadWlf]

In other words, man not God decided which laws should go or stay.

BINGO

 

[BigBadWlf]

In other words, no. Humans examined the word of God and when taking the Bible contextually and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not their logic that wants homosexuality to be "okay", they realized that the distinctions exist.

Interesting how you reject the possibility that humans examined the word of God and when taking the Bible contextually and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not their logic that wants prejudices and hatred against homosexuals to be, they realized that the distinctions you claim do not exist at all.

 

[BreadAlone]

Interesting how you reject the possibility that humans examined the word of God and when taking the Bible contextually and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not their logic that wants prejudices and hatred against homosexuals to be, they realized that the distinctions you claim do not exist at all.

And if you showed me a valid reason why there are not I would eagerly reconsider my stance. But you won't..you'll continue to say "there are non" and will walk away..because you don't have any proof. You only have your burning desire for homosexuality to be "okayed" by God.

 

[BigBadWlf]

And if you showed me a valid reason why there are not I would eagerly reconsider my stance.

Its unbiblical.

But you won't..you'll continue to say "there are non" and will walk away..because you don't have any proof.

Now:
We are all still waiting for you to provide proof for this mythical division.

You only have your burning desire for homosexuality to be "okayed" by God.

My desire is that all people be free from hate and prejudice. what is yours?

 

[davedjy]

You only have your burning desire for homosexuality to be "okayed" by God.

Who here even mentioned anything about a "desire for it to be okayed"? Most of the pro-gay arguers here ALREADY believe it is "okayed" and affirmed by God, we are just sharing our beliefs in this forum.

 

[OllieFranz]

OK, assuming that you can make the distinction, into which class do the following commands fall? (Note: they were chosen because there have been, and still are, branches of the Church that teach that they are "moral laws" that must still be obeyed.)

The ban on cross-dressing (Deut 22:5)

The ban on tatoos, brands and cuts (Lev 19:28)

The sabbath laws (Lev 23:3ff)

According to Acts 15, there are only four Mosaic Law commands that are still banned, and Paul's letters seem to indicate that two of those continued to be banned only because to declare them no longer binding would shock the sensibilities of some of the breteren, causing them to stumble.

*bump*