Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So how do you determine what laws fall in each category? (ok the food laws are kinda obvious but what about the others).Each aspect of the Law that was not specific to the Children of Israel following their coming out of captivity is the same law that God has written on our hearts. There are aspects concerning the pagan practices of Egypt that do not apply , there are health issues regarding certain foods that do not apply, and there are issues concerning the sacrifices and other matters of the tabenacle that do not apply. Moral issues and matters relating to the well being for Holy living do apply which includes the instruction regarding marking the skin -(tattoos ) -Lev 19:28
These matters and others concerning the life we have in Jesus are certainly written on my heart and I thank God for the complete work of Calvary that enabled that to be so. I hope you all have been similarly blessed.
I will try and bear in mind those views but untill I'm convinced the source is reliable then I won't neccesarily agree. I will however for the purpose of this discussion stick to that definition. I don't mean to offend by questioning the reliability of the source you quoted so if I have please forgive me. I just like to be certain for myself that a source is reliable.Not that I disagree with your overall premise... but if you're going to use a verse as evidence, you might as well use the correct evidence
But, like I said... I agree with the premise that you can't pick and choose which commandments you follow.
But maybe the point of Jesus healing on the sabbath was included in scripture is to show us that the first responsibility is to help others and that overules other laws. Of course BJ has made the assumption that because Jesus didn't say that healing is not working which could easily be an incorrect assumption.I reject the Messiah that does not perfectly follow the Torah of G-d. He is not a sinner!
Which verse are you talking about here? My bible does not have the word "only" in Hebrews 10:1 so I'm a little confused.2) I'm fairly certain the word "only" does not occur in the original language in Hebrews 10:1. That word was put in by translators and displays a bit of their bias. that passage of Hebrews is confusing, but I wanted to point out the error.
Where did he say God's scripture is meaningless to him? I don't believe that we should take all the OT law literally. Does that mean I can't learn from it? No I can still learn it's just that the lesson for me to learn today is different to what it was for the original receipients.3) I'm greatly, deeply offended that you'd call G-d's Holy Scripture and intructions "not good to use to glorify G-d" and that they don't bring glory to G-d. I don't mean to be argumentative, but can you see someone looking into the eyes of the L-rd and saying "Your Scripture is meaningless to me. I don't think it glorifies you."
That is a matter of opinion. Sure when 2nd Timothy was written there was only one set of scriptures used. Of course different people seem to have different views of what was contained in that one set of scriptures. There is a widely accepted belief that God was speaking of all scripture as in what was currently being used and what would make it into the bible. I have seen nothing that would suggest that can't be true. Of course that doesn't mean it is true.Sorry, but he isn't talking about the New Testament here. there was only 1 set of Scriptures used for teaching, rebuking, training in righteousness, and for learning the way to salvation through Messiah... and that contained the Torah... how do you reconcile the complete contradiction?
I will try and bear in mind those views but untill I'm convinced the source is reliable then I won't neccesarily agree. I will however for the purpose of this discussion stick to that definition. I don't mean to offend by questioning the reliability of the source you quoted so if I have please forgive me. I just like to be certain for myself that a source is reliable.
But maybe the point of Jesus healing on the sabbath was included in scripture is to show us that the first responsibility is to help others and that overules other laws. Of course BJ has made the assumption that because Jesus didn't say that healing is not working which could easily be an incorrect assumption.
Which verse are you talking about here? My bible does not have the word "only" in Hebrews 10:1 so I'm a little confused.
Where did he say God's scripture is meaningless to him? I don't believe that we should take all the OT law literally. Does that mean I can't learn from it? No I can still learn it's just that the lesson for me to learn today is different to what it was for the original receipients.
That is a matter of opinion. Sure when 2nd Timothy was written there was only one set of scriptures used. Of course different people seem to have different views of what was contained in that one set of scriptures. There is a widely accepted belief that God was speaking of all scripture as in what was currently being used and what would make it into the bible. I have seen nothing that would suggest that can't be true. Of course that doesn't mean it is true.
You are so wiseI personally wouldnt get a tattoo because I would change my mind and regret it.
Great post I notice that that is the only one you have made since joining CF. We sure could do with some more of your wisdomFirst off, let me say that I am a Youth Pastor and bible school student, as well as a musician.
I have a few things to say in regards to tats.
I played Defensive End in college, and some of my D-line buddies had barbed wire tats around their left arms. I thought that was pretty cool, so I looked into getting one, except that I wanted mine to show my newfound faith in Christ (Since I had just given my life to Him at age 19)....so I decided to get a crown of thorns instead of barbed wire. One of my little cousins was with me when I decided to get it (we grew up close----she is more like a sister to me than a cousin), and she begged me not to do it. Because of her insistance, I got a temp one instead to "make sure you like it, it's permanant you know." The temp one lasted only 6 weeks.
The first week or so, I thought it was the coolest thing ever, and just knew I'd be going back to have it filled over with ink.
After about 2 weeks it got really anoying-----like a stain in your shirt you can't wash out.
Glad I didn't get the real thing: however I have never (and will never) condemn someone else who does.
Point of the story is this...........If you had a bunch of tats before you got saved, great; It is kind of like a marker to show others the roads you have walked down. Use them to identify with others, and in that way you can use them to glorify God.
But the real question is what about tats on this side of salvation?
I have read numerous people posting the Levitical law to show that we shouldn't mark our bodies. Then I read a post that some one put this in: "For one the law was never given to the gentiles and second the law is done away with."
Hmmmmm. I agree and disagree. (Stay with me till the end on this, don't get offended just yet)
1) The law was never given to the gentiles, however Paul also tells us not to use our liberty as a cloak for vice.
2) Jesus said "do not think that I came to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." He also said that Heaven and Earth would pass away, but not one jot or tittle in the law would EVER pass away.
So why is it that we always try to make the New Testament appear to be a "lowering of the bar" in regards to lifestyle? (Don't get mad at me now just because I'm telling the truth. Trust me, I got caught in this web for a few years myself.)Greasy grace is what we call it. You know, the whole "Christians aren't perfect---just forgiven" thing. Is that statement a fact? Yes. But truth is a Spirit, and the "spirit" of that statement is that Christians can live just like the rest of the world but still go to heaven if they "believe" in Jesus. True belief is evidenced by obediance and conformity to Christ, it is not merely mental assention (e.g. believing Christ was a real person, who really died a substitutionary, vicarious death, who rose bodily, etc.)
The Bible says that even the demons believe that, and tremble.
True faith is evidenced by its outworking in our lives (for faith without works is dead----B.T.W., that is a NEW TESTAMENT scripture.)
Isn't the New Testament a raising of the bar?
Let me give an example of this. In the Old Testament, you had to run a sword through someone to be considered a murderer. In the New testament, you just have to hate your brother without a cause to be considered a murderer. In the Old Testament you had to jump in bed with another woman to be considered an adulterer, but Jesus said that whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has already commited adultery in his heart.
Am I trying to preach legalism to you? NO. Some commandments have been altered because of the cross; however the REASON they have been altered is because Christ is concerned with the motives of the heart, not just the actions themselves.
The Bible says "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the Sons of God."
God will lead you by a few different means, but the Cheif of these are His Word, and his peace.
If you are having to ask others if it is ok, then it tells me that you don't have a peace about it in your heart. If you don't have a peace about it, then don't do it.
Obviously, the oldrooster above has no problem with having a peace about getting inked: but the oldrooster isn't you.
Paul said to "work out YOUR OWN salvation with fear and trembling". Working out your salvation with FEAR and TREMBLING, I think, means not doing things that in your own mind are questionable. If you have ANY reservations inside your heart, then you already have found the answer of whether getting a tat is right for YOU: so listen to the Holy Spirit's inner promptings. That way you'll never have to be guilty of grieving God's Holy Spirit.
Getting a tat wasn't right for me, and I don't have a full peace about it myself FOR ME.
That doesn't mean that I dis-approve of others who have them; I've seen some that were pretty "cool", and even a few that I thought were "cute" on a few different girls that I know (friends of mine....though one of them hates her tat: a small cross on her lower back, I think it's kind of cute)
I don't think you should let anyone put you under a yoke of legalistic bondage, but I also have found that I've never regreted what I didn't have to attempt to explain away.
Hope this helped.
HONOR, COURAGE, WISDOM
-Frosty
Oh, well I could have just quoted the Scripture then. That's the source I care about. I just added a bit of commentary to explain. Basically, in my quote above it mentions the Scripture that says you should not mix wool and linen.I will try and bear in mind those views but untill I'm convinced the source is reliable then I won't neccesarily agree. I will however for the purpose of this discussion stick to that definition. I don't mean to offend by questioning the reliability of the source you quoted so if I have please forgive me. I just like to be certain for myself that a source is reliable.
Oh I agree that our Master showed us that we honor Shabbat by caring for others. Showing love or saving lives does not constitute breaking the Torah, however. It never did. The Pharisees had forgotten the most important aspect of Shabbat and had made it into a bunch of rules and restrictions that weren't glorifying the original intent. I think we'd agree that Yeshua set the record straight about what G-d wanted on Shabbat. But in doing so, he could not have actually broken a commandment of Torah. It would be illogical to break a Torah command (which is straight from G-d) to say what G-d wants. That's what I'm getting atBut maybe the point of Jesus healing on the sabbath was included in scripture is to show us that the first responsibility is to help others and that overules other laws. Of course BJ has made the assumption that because Jesus didn't say that healing is not working which could easily be an incorrect assumption.
The gentleman I quoted used the word "only" when quoting Hebrews 10:1. My point was that it was inserted by translators. Sometimes the word "mere" is used instead of "only". I'm glad your Scriptures does not have that problem. Some translations don't have it, and I prefer that if they add a word to the document, it always be marked in italics. That clues you in to what liberties the translators took to flesh out the text. It helps when doing a serious verse study.Which verse are you talking about here? My bible does not have the word "only" in Hebrews 10:1 so I'm a little confused.
I may have misunderstood the way he phrased the admonition of not using G-d's Torah to glorify G-d. But I was responding to the impression I got.Where did he say God's scripture is meaningless to him? I don't believe that we should take all the OT law literally. Does that mean I can't learn from it? No I can still learn it's just that the lesson for me to learn today is different to what it was for the original receipients.
I agree that G-d inspired all the Scriptures we have today. But that doesn't make the Scriptures he was talking about at that moment less important, does it?That is a matter of opinion. Sure when 2nd Timothy was written there was only one set of scriptures used. Of course different people seem to have different views of what was contained in that one set of scriptures. There is a widely accepted belief that God was speaking of all scripture as in what was currently being used and what would make it into the bible. I have seen nothing that would suggest that can't be true. Of course that doesn't mean it is true.
Ok I got the wrong impression sorry.Oh I agree that our Master showed us that we honor Shabbat by caring for others. Showing love or saving lives does not constitute breaking the Torah, however. It never did. The Pharisees had forgotten the most important aspect of Shabbat and had made it into a bunch of rules and restrictions that weren't glorifying the original intent. I think we'd agree that Yeshua set the record straight about what G-d wanted on Shabbat. But in doing so, he could not have actually broken a commandment of Torah. It would be illogical to break a Torah command (which is straight from G-d) to say what G-d wants. That's what I'm getting at
Ok that makes more sense. I didn't notice that he used the word only. Maybe I should wear my glasses while on CF!The gentleman I quoted used the word "only" when quoting Hebrews 10:1. My point was that it was inserted by translators. Sometimes the word "mere" is used instead of "only". I'm glad your Scriptures does not have that problem. Some translations don't have it, and I prefer that if they add a word to the document, it always be marked in italics. That clues you in to what liberties the translators took to flesh out the text. It helps when doing a serious verse study.
Ok I'm a litle confused. I was under the impression that you were saying that the passage in Timothy only meant the scriptures that were in existence at the time Timothy was written and not the New Testament. Did I get the wrong impression?I agree that G-d inspired all the Scriptures we have today. But that doesn't make the Scriptures he was talking about at that moment less important, does it?
We can't ignore that 2 Timothy is most likely talking about the Tanakh at that time. There were no other Scriptures that they would have had since childhood (see the whole context for that reference). I just think that we can't value 1/3 of the book over the rest. It's one book, no divisions.
So why were those laws written? What was the purpose of them? To whom were they written? What was the cultural context in which they were written? Even in society today not all laws are meant to be taken literally. How do you reconcile Pauls instructions on non-kosher foods and the OT instructions? I certainly respect the view of those who believe we shouldn't eat non-kosher foods and if I am sharing a meal with such a person like eirene then I would not eat non-kosher foods.Why shouldn't we take the OT literally? How can laws mean anything except the literal meaning?
I don't take the OT 100% literally and I don't take the NT 100% literally either. That does not mean I don't take parts literally.The NT is what shouldn't be taken 100% literally.
Not a problem at all! I'm glad I could clear it up a wee bitOk I got the wrong impression sorry.
Ok that makes more sense. I didn't notice that he used the word only. Maybe I should wear my glasses while on CF!
Well I'm not a scholar by profession by any means, and am always in the learning process. But my understanding at this time is that the passage in 2Tim was talking of the Tanakh at that time. But since the Word of G-d is living and active and G-d has revealed Himself to us over periods of time (continuing revelation as we see in the Scriptures)... I don't feel uncomfortable saying that G-d inspired 2 Timothy and that it not only applies in the historical context, but applies to us today.Ok I'm a litle confused. I was under the impression that you were saying that the passage in Timothy only meant the scriptures that were in existence at the time Timothy was written and not the New Testament. Did I get the wrong impression?
Hey Sis! I'm a tattooed Torah loverJust one thing (back on topic)... am I the only person who wishes to submit to Torah and who also doesn't think tattoos are bad? I bet that sounds like a contradiction, but I don't see it that way. I just wonder if I'm alone in the world
this should more accurately read:If just one like your daughter could be saved from getting the same through Godly fellowship on CF, it is worth what it takes to speak in support of God's will on tattoos.
you have debated well with those on this forum tas. So have they. But as you can see from their posts and arguments, you are not the sole keeper of what is and what is not God's will on the matter. others (like myself) disagree and we feel quite strongly that we have not gone outside God's will when we got a tattoo.If just one like your daughter could be saved from getting the same through Godly fellowship on CF, it is wroth what it takes to speak in support of what I think God's will is on tattoos.
Just a really quick comment that will be ignored among the avalanche of opinion, but the fact is I have known no one who got a tattoo who didn't regret it later. At the very least they got tired of the art work and at most they wanted to get rid of the whole thing.How do yall fell about tatoos. I have a friend of mine who just got one, and is still trying to prove to him selve that thier aint nothing wrong with them. Please give me book chapter verse where it talks about body markings.
this should more accurately read:
If you think that referring to God's will on the matter of tattoos is worthy of wroth -so be it -that is your perogativeIf just one like your daughter could be saved from getting the same through Godly fellowship on CF, it is wroth what it takes to speak in support of what I think God's will is on tattoos.
Perhaps your tattoo is not an indication of God's will on the matter either.you have debated well with those on this forum tas. So have they. But as you can see from their posts and arguments, you are not the sole keeper of what is and what is not God's will on the matter. others (like myself) disagree and we feel quite strongly that we have not gone outside God's will when we got a tattoo.
I will not comment on what has been posted previous to me posting on this thread for various reasons -none of which I want to discuss here.I fail to understand why you would bump up a 4 month dead thread that has basicly been in support of tattoos. Will there soon be a complaint about the pro-tattoos of the site?
Your comment hasn't been ignored by me . I consider that it holds a lot of wisdom for those thinking about getting tattooed for lifeJust a really quick comment that will be ignored among the avalanche of opinion, but the fact is I have known no one who got a tatoo who didn't regret it later. At the very least they got tired of the art work and at most they wanted to get rid of the whole thing.
I, like many others, simply interpret that one verse in the levitical law differently than you. I make no judgment on you for your interpretation, but when you present your interpretation so strongly as a matter of fact, you are being unfair to those seeking "Chrstian advice"If you think that referring to God's will on the matter of tattoos is worthy of wroth -so be it -that is your perogative
agreed, I've not made that assertionPerhaps your tattoo is not an indication of God's will on the matter either.
as you wishI will not comment on what has been posted previous to me posting on this thread for various reasons -none of which I want to discuss here.
and this is a valid point. I won't know until I draw my last breath if I can say, "I'll never regret mine." My grandfather regretted his, but the picture and the location made it uncomfortable for him later in life. I specifically chose mine to ensure that this doesn't happen. Unless I were to somehow disavow my faith in Christ, I can't IMAGINE it happening, but you never know.Just a really quick comment that will be ignored among the avalanche of opinion, but the fact is I have known no one who got a tattoo who didn't regret it later. At the very least they got tired of the art work and at most they wanted to get rid of the whole thing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?