Is it possible for a sinner who has a "666" tattoo to get saved?

[muddleglum]

Da verse(s)?
How about: Rev 14:9-11
I'd get rid of the damned thing; wouldn't you?

Only if I was superstitious, or if I love my weaker brother, or if it might be a stumbling block that inhibits a non-christian from accepting the Gospel.
If a tattoo, in general, causes problems in other areas, like getting employment, then it would be considered good stewardship to get rid of it.
But all that would be something to learn after becoming a Christian. So that first choice drops out of the equation.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I don't know, they might do. But the parlour's been there less than a year; the Church has been there for a couple of hundred - at least.

It's not my church, though we have had church members with tattoos, and I've never known anyone object.

Strong in Him:

It used to be years ago that some church members would have been sailors in their youth and therefore possibly had tattoos. Nowadays not only sailors get them but in North America 59% - 70% of parlor clients are women, a proportion of whose designs are faith based.

At least, this is how it is over here; I'm not sure about with you guys over the Pond?

Blessings.

 

[John Robie]

I said, " Looks like you are equating the number 666 to the mark of the beast. So, starting there, I'd say yes. Get the tattoos removed or blacked out."

Da verse(s)?

How about: Rev 14:9-11

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships
the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their
hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured
full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning
sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke
of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night
for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives
the mark of its name.

I'd get rid of the damned thing; wouldn't you?

Whether I would or wouldn't isn't relevant.

What you posted doesn't say anything about removing a tattoo to be saved.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I don't like the look, or the idea, of tattoos with the pain, risk of infection etc, and my dad was always very scathing of those who had them and then used NHS resources to get them removed. So, unless I decide to become a rebellious pensioner in a few years; I doubt this is something I'll ever do.
Though I can see the attraction in getting a small, faith based one as a talking point.

PS: Strong in Him: Yes, I suppose that years ago the biker/outlaw etc. image went with the idea of rebelliousness among those who were often tattooed.

But today I'm not so sure; in fact, the preacher's daughter that goes to college and gets a Christian fish sign <>< on her wrist, or the grandmother that gets the dates of birth of her grandkids inked together with a praying hands logo, etc. don't really fit the 'rebellious' image.

(If this makes sense?)

Blessings.

 

[Strong in Him]

PS: Strong in Him: Yes, I suppose that years ago the biker/outlaw etc. image went with the idea of rebelliousness among those who were often tattooed.

But today I'm not so sure; in fact, the preacher's daughter that goes to college and gets a Christian fish sign <>< on her wrist, or the grandmother that gets the dates of birth of her grandkids inked together with a praying hands logo, etc. don't really fit the 'rebellious' image.

(If this makes sense?)

Blessings.

Yes it does.
I meant that it would be rebellious for me though. Even though I don't like them, my mother Strongly Disapproved of them.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that anyone who has a tattoo is rebellious, or rebelling.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Yes it does.
I meant that it would be rebellious for me though. Even though I don't like them, my mother Strongly Disapproved of them.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that anyone who has a tattoo is rebellious, or rebelling.

Strong in Him:

Hey, no problem; I guess I was talking round the matter from various perspectives.

I like way you referred to your good mother who "Strongly Disapproved" of tattoos (capital S, capital D) .

I reckon these days there are a lot of tattooed daughters with moms who variously express their views or keep quiet about the subject!

Blessings.

 

[Noxot]

Ok, theoretical question here: Let's say we have a criminal who receives a 666 tattoo on his forehead or right hand when he's in prison. However, later on in life they regret it and have it removed. Is it possible for that person to get saved or no?

oh, i'm sure if he gets it modified to an 888 that everything will be cool seeing as 'Jesus' adds up to 888 in the greek.

 

[faroukfarouk]

...we have had church members with tattoos, and I've never known anyone object.

Strong in Him: Well, it would not be unusual, whether the church members' tattoos are faith based or not, I guess, right?

Blessings.

 

[Jig]

I love everyone's replies! The reason why I ask is because in revelations whoever gets the mark of the beast... Which is 666... Is damned forever. Its not really a question about the tattoo haha.

You are referencing Revelation 14:9-11

And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”

As a dispensational premillennialist, I interpret this passage as still future. I absolutely believe that all of those who receive the "mark of the beast" will end up in the Lake of Fire. However, it is precisely this interpretation that makes me believe that the mark is not physical. A physical mark can be forced onto someone (even a believer) against their will. As such, I view this mark in Revelation as symbolic or spiritual. And I have Scripture to back this claim up!

In Deuteronomy 6:6-8 we read, "And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes."

Many orthodox Jews today take this passage hyper-literal. They have phylacteries that they physically tie on their hand/arm and forehead to "mark" themselves. However, God is not asking His people to physically tie leather wraps with little pieces of Scripture around their hand/arms and forehead. He is telling them that their actions and their thoughts need to be a reflection of His words. For God this was a matter of the heart.

I see a parallel between Deuteronomy 6 and Revelation 13/14, in regards to a "mark" being placed on the hand and forehead. A Jew reading/hearing Revelation in the first century would have noticed this. It is all those who "in their heart" have accepted the "words" of the Antichrist who have symbolically through their actions (hand) and thoughts (forehead) have received the "mark" of the beast.

As such, the mark isn't some mircochip or barcode. It cannot be physically placed on someone.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I know Paul said we are to honour the Lord with our bodies, but if a Christian loves the Lord, feels that it is ok to have a, tasteful, tattoo and is not dishonouring to him; why not?

Strong in Him:

In fact a Christian man or woman might in some cases actually feel that submitting to being injected with a faith based design (Christian fish sign <>< on wrist, Bible ref. or quote, etc.) is an act of seeking to 'honour the Lord with our bodies', like you say, right?

Blessings.

 

[Isaacsname]

Oh man, doomed forever

DoooOOoooOooooOOoomed

 

[Soyeong]

Are you sure it's not a 999 tatoo?

 

[Catherineanne]

Ok, theoretical question here: Let's say we have a criminal who receives a 666 tattoo on his forehead or right hand when he's in prison. However, later on in life they regret it and have it removed. Is it possible for that person to get saved or no?

Yes.

Otherwise a tattoo would be stronger than God's mercy, which would be rather bizarre.

 

[Catherineanne]

I love everyone's replies! The reason why I ask is because in revelations whoever gets the mark of the beast... Which is 666... Is damned forever. Its not really a question about the tattoo haha.

Yes, I am pretty sure many of us got that.

There is some evidence that 666 is the wrong number; it was wrongly transcribed from 616. Either way, it is just a number; God's mercy is stronger than any tattoo.

 

[Soyeong]

It's actually not a number.

 

[Catherineanne]

yes it can, but that's not the end of the story.

the best example of that is when the risen Jesus called to the disciples while they were fishing without catching anything after a long night, and He told them where to cast their nets....on the right side of the boat.
Yes they were fishermen by trade, but He was the creator of the fish.

The fish were His and He knew just where they were, the same as He knew where the disciples were in their journey.

The decision of the disciples to follow His directions and give up on their own plans showed that they were ready to be led once again. And when they recognized who it was who was leading them was when they accepted the greater challenge to be fishers of men.
And then just as Peter had betrayed Him 3 times, so He called Peter back those 3 times to make sure that Peter knew and was really ready to come all the way back to Him.

So the short story here is that as far away as someone has traveled away from the Lord is how far they have to go to come back to Him once again.

Not quite. No matter how far we think we have travelled away from the Lord, he will always be right beside us; he is clever like that.

 

[Catherineanne]

The Royal priesthood of all believers in Orthodoxy is affirmed by the fact that any,Christian can baptize someone in danger of death in an emergency; thus the most sacred sacrament of initiation can be administered in dire need by any Christians.

This is true of Catholicism and Anglicanism as well; anyone can baptise in extremis, even a non Christian. I was assured some years ago by a midwife friend of mine that all midwives in the UK are trained to baptise; not just Christian ones. This is in case of imminent danger to the baby, the parents wanting the child to be baptised and no priest being immediately available. I cannot say for sure if this is still the case, but I hope it is.

However we are a bit off topic.

: )

 

[faroukfarouk]

Even though I don't like them, my mother Strongly Disapproved of them.

Strong in Him:

I guess this definitely means your mom didn't have a tattoo, then! Anyway, she was probably of the generation when it was unusual for women to go to the tattoo parlor.

 

[RDKirk]

Not quite. No matter how far we think we have travelled away from the Lord, he will always be right beside us; he is clever like that.

Evangelist Frances Chan compares the Holy Spirit to GPS. No matter how far you get off the route, He never says "You're too lost!" He always knows the fastest route back to where you should be.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I'm sure many conversations have begun, but also it may cause others to stumble. A tattoo is a very bold statement, no matter the intent; just worried that it wouldn't fit in with modesty. Of course this is my personal view.

seekingsolace: Do you think a small, faith based tattoo on a wrist, for example, would suitably fit the bounds of modesty?

Blessings.