Tattoo First Timer Yet?

Beagler said:
Jesus rebuked and chastised the "Religious Leaders" of his day and called them "Blind Guides" further He drove out the money changers and rebuked them physically. I would imagine they would have felt hurt both physically and mentally.

It is written, my house shall be a house of prayer.
Click to expand...

I see--I think I understand what you are asking. When Christ drove out the money changers, he wasn't going against moral law (which I would express is an extension of God's Law). Christ was being charitable by two accounts. 1) By displaying respect for the temple as it was the House of God, and 2) by the money changers that they were wrong.

Unless moral law is being used in the earthly way (which many times can conflict with God), moral law in its purest, truest form can't conflict with God's law as God himself established moral law.
 
Beagler said:
So if I am correct you are saying there is God's Moral Law and distinguishing between it and Man's moral law?
Click to expand...

It really depends. Sometimes they align--both God's and Man's agree that it's wrong to steal, it's wrong to kill, etc. etc. (I use these examples in a general form). However, man's moral law can sometimes be "be accepting of everything" or "keep your opinions to yourself so that you don't offend."

How would you define "moral law"?
 
For me there's only God's law. The hard part is defining it in all circumstances. ( as Paul demonstrates in his letters to the early church)
When Moses said to God "Who shall I say has sent me" God replied "I Am" .
In John 8:58 Jesus uses this name verifying he is God. So to follow God's Moral Law I must study that which Jesus taught as he is the fulfilment of the Law.
Although I will fail I take great comfort from Romans 7:14-24 and even greater comfort from Verses 25.
 
Beagler said:
For me there's only God's law. The hard part is defining it in all circumstances. ( as Paul demonstrates in his letters to the early church)
When Moses said to God "Who shall I say has sent me" God replied "I Am" .
In John 8:58 Jesus uses this name verifying he is God. So to follow God's Moral Law I must study that which Jesus taught as he is the fulfilment of the Law.
Although I will fail I take great comfort from Romans 7:14-24 and even greater comfort from Verses 25.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Moral Law cannot truly exist devoid of God. God is the author of moral law, especially since God isn't an added element to the universe, but the creator of the elements and the universe altogether.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
Absolutely. Moral Law cannot truly exist devoid of God. God is the author of moral law, especially since God isn't an added element to the universe, but the creator of the elements and the universe altogether.
Click to expand...

So to get back to the question of Tattoos, I accept we are not under Law and that we have a New Covenant fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ but there are instructions in the Old Testament I prefer to follow such as the forbidding of Consultation with the dead and with Mediums.
We all at the end of the day must act according to our conscience and not judge each other. For me tattoos would be a no but I respect others views on the matter.

Thank you for your time I have enjoyed our discussion ... God Bless.
 
Beagler said:
So to get back to the question of Tattoos, I accept we are not under Law and that we have a New Covenant fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ but there are instructions in the Old Testament I prefer to follow such as the forbidding of Consultation with the dead and with Mediums.
We all at the end of the day must act according to our conscience and not judge each other. For me tattoos would be a no but I respect others views on the matter.

Thank you for your time I have enjoyed our discussion ... God Bless.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying.
Indeed, the New Covenant lays aside ceremonial laws (like regarding eating Kosher, cutting beards, wearing multi-frabrics, etc.). From my position, this is why the Catholic Church includes the act of getting or receiving tattoos in that same category--God was addressing pagan practices. Though like wearing certain fabrics, eating Kosher, and cutting beards (depending on how Orthodox one is), the Jews also refrain from tattoos.

I've enjoyed it too. God bless and be with you.
 
Hi guys; what a lot of posts since I last looked at the thread!

Re. cutting for the dead in Leviticus 19: I guess 'for the dead' may be part of the general context. Also, just a few words away from this is the part about not trimming the corners of beards; what I would ask is, Do preachers shave? A question which this begs is that if one is going to use this passage against tattoos (as well as pagan necromancy rites, etc.), one had better have a bushy beard like a Hassidic Jew, before doing so. I do wonder if the context is also Old Testament Jews in the land, under the law? The New Testament Epistles and Acts make it clear also that the believer is not under the law in the same sense as Old Testament Jews.

(But you know, interpretationally, some strange, strange things sometimes happen. Stranger from out of town comes into a church building, where a good ol' boy has been ministering for decades. The stranger has a beard. For the good ol' boy, figuring whether the stranger is a Christian isn't so important; rather, the fact that he has a beard is really objectionable: you see, Fidel Castro has a beard, so it 'proves' that all card-carrying Christians and Republicans shouldn't have beards. 'I want you to meet my daughter' says the stranger; and she comes in and sits down. Again, whether she is a Christian isn't so important for the good ol' boy: he spots that she has a Bible verse tattoo on her wrist and so starts citing Leviticus 19 as the reason why she shouldn't. The stranger's daughter listens politely, but doesn't say anything; she does notice that the good ol' boy, apparently without irony, is using the passage to prove that tattoos are not acceptable that also says about not cutting beards. Meanwhile the good ol' boy's granddaughter shows, arriving on a visit from college, and it turns out she now has triple pierced ears. There then follows a long and ultimately inconclusive discussion about why triple pierced ears are 'okay' but a Bible verse ref. tattooed on a wrist for witness purposes is 'not okay'. Meanwhile, and in the months and years that follow, the church declines through sheer lack of soundly presented Biblical doctrine.)

Two cents'.
 
Last edited:
Beagler said:
So to get back to the question of Tattoos, I accept we are not under Law and that we have a New Covenant fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ but there are instructions in the Old Testament I prefer to follow such as the forbidding of Consultation with the dead and with Mediums.
We all at the end of the day must act according to our conscience and not judge each other. For me tattoos would be a no but I respect others views on the matter.

Thank you for your time I have enjoyed our discussion ... God Bless.
Click to expand...

Beagler:

I understand what you say about tattoos not being for you.

From what you've been saying, this either means that you feel that it's a legal prohibition. Or that it's not your personal preference. (I'm just wondering which, if you'd be so good as to clarify?)

Blessings and thank-you.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
Haha, somewhat. I can't vouch for the most painful places. We're probably only moderately veterans. Maryse might be more of an expert than we.
Click to expand...

For the pain levels, depends both on the placement and how boney it is and relative thickness of the skin, and on the size of the design, right.
 
As a matter of fact, the whole tattoo thing — especially for women — has come full circle.

I saw this quote:

..tattooing was quite popular in the late 1700s and early 1800s in Western cultures. Women in particular found tattoos to be quite in fashion for a brief time in the Victorian era, and tattoos were seen as something that the upper class would collect. ( spiritgallery dot com 140-tattoos-on-women-in-the-1800s )

Then for decades it was less fashionable (I guess partly because of its identification with San Diego and Tijuana parlors for sailors).

Now it's come full circle, really.

It's classy again. Especially for women. (In North America between 59% and 70% of clients in today's parlors - some of which are more like salons - are women, in fact.)

My thing is (percentages and classiness aside) faith based designs - Bible ref. on wrist, Christian fish symbol on foot or ankle, etc. - are proven conversation-starters.

(Two cents'.)
..................

PS: Seems like in some Christian households it's a thoroughly established custom also:

Originally posted by Jeni Ruth I guess for our family the question of whether or not to be tattooed was already made as I had 12 tats and my hubby had 4 when we were first saved. Certainly the style and reason for our tats changed after being saved. Five of our 6 kids are also inked [ages 28-35] .. (from Christian hyphen tattoos dot com )
.........
Originally Posted by Linda L ..I was away from God for about 20 years of my adult life, and thanks to my faithful husband was brought back into the knowledge of God’s love and faith in and for me. I was 55 when I got my tattoo, and when deciding what to get, I knew I had to get something that displayed my faith and love in and for God, maybe kind of as a tribute. God’s love, grace and forgiveness are things that I know will not falter, so I wanted something to help remind me when I have weak times. ( from adamjcopeland dot com )
 
Last edited:
LysanderShapiro said:
Exactly. Neither of us got our tattoos in the most painful areas yet--so we can't vouch for that.
Click to expand...

LysanderShapiro:

Well, we seem to have rather distinct theological positions. But from the point of view of common sense observations about tattoos we seem to communicate okay.

Anyway, seems like you and your wife are undeterred by any pain issues that go with tattoos.

Maybe your mom feels the same way? (unless her existing ink proves to be enough for her, anyhow.)
 
PS: It's fair to record also that getting tattooed has become a very widespread practice among military wives, some of them Christian, and it tends to be accompanied by deep conviction:

Originally Posted by froggiesmileatu
I have a tattoo ..that I got the last time my husband was deployed; ... the words Silent Ranks. .. People question me all the time what Silent Ranks mean and, being a proud military wife, I do not mind explaining that it is another name for a military wife. We don't wear the uniform but we sign on the day we put on that ring to everything the military sends our spouses way.

...............

Originally Posted by rarah.peachey
I have a fairly high pain tolerance. There were areas that were uncomfortable, but overall it wasn't bad. It took me three years to finally get mine. I had the same design in my mind the whole time, but still wasn't sure. After all, it's permanent. I settled on getting Immanuel written across my wrist in Hebrew. As a military wife of faith, I felt there would be many times I would need to remember "God is with us" (which is what Immanuel means in Hebrew).

( from: militaryspouse dot com )

People's individual reasons for doing it will vary.

But as a medium, it can undoubtedly speak loudly as a testimony message.

Blessings.
 
Beagler said:
What is the view of Lev. 19:28.?
Click to expand...

Beagler: In summary, looking at the adjacent verse in the chapter, the question which this begs loudly is: do preachers shave?

(If they do, then, whatever their opnions and rhetoric they are not really treating the passage dispensationally as they would a New Testament passage.)
 
Sorry Farouk but I dont understand what shaving has to do with Tattoos. The "Cutting" mentioned earlier is an incision in the flesh as I understand.

cuttings
Seret (seh'-ret) and sareteth {saw-reh'-teth}; from sarat; an incision:--cutting.

As I said earlier for me its a no but others must decide. I also believe Lev 20:6 applies for me.
 
Beagler said:
Sorry Farouk but I dont understand what shaving has to do with Tattoos. The "Cutting" mentioned earlier is an incision in the flesh as I understand.

cuttings
Seret (seh'-ret) and sareteth {saw-reh'-teth}; from sarat; an incision:--cutting.

As I said earlier for me its a no but others must decide. I also believe Lev 20:6 applies for me.
Click to expand...

Beagler:

Well, okay.

What I meant was, in the context:

Leviticus 19.27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead... (etc)

I guess my question is, exegetically and dispensationally: before they can preach the Gospel, do preachers today have to look like Hassidic Jews with bushy beards that must not be trimmed?

Blessings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top