Anybody Want To Discuss Holiness Here

[Urib2007]

How do they get around Leviticus 19:28?

Clearly, there it is. "Ye shall not. . .print any marks upon you. . ."

A lot of Christians when confronted with Leviticus 19:28, scream, "Hey dude, that’s not for today. Man, that’s the Old Testament. I’m under the New Testament".

Did you know that "bestiality" (sicko, perverted, sex with an animal) was ONLY forbidden in the Old Testament Levitical Law? Only in Leviticus 18:23 and Leviticus 20:15-16. Dude, only in the Old Testament Law. Does that mean a Holy God NOW – under the New Testament, approves of bestiality?

By the way, have you ever read Leviticus 19:29? The verse immediately AFTER the "it’s not for me" Leviticus 19:28?

Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
Leviticus 19:29
This is the only place in the Bible that God directly forbids someone to prostitute their daughter. And since, it’s ONLY in the Old Testament Levitical Law (and "hey, dude, we’re NOT under the law") – it MUST be ok by the Lord for a parent to cause their daughter to prostitute.

Same sick, perverted, wicked, line of reasoning as the "it’s ONLY in the Old Testament-tattoo-bearer-wearer". Same reasoning. . . Same disobedience. . . Same perversion of the Word of God.

There are many other "moral laws’ that are ONLY forbidden in the Old Testament, such as the human sacrifice of children. No where in the New Testament is this forbidden. Does that mean that NOW under the New Testament, God Almighty endorses throwing babies into the fire as a human sacrifice?

And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 18:21
Matthew Henry’s Commentary at the beginning of Leviticus 19 explains that most of Leviticus 19 (such as verse 19:28) are moral commandments that applies not only for Israel but for the New Testament Christian today.

"Some ceremonial precepts there are in this chapter, but most of them are moral. . . Most of these precepts are binding on us, for they are expositions of most of the ten commandments."
(Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Leviticus 19:28)
IT’S ONLY "FOR THE DEAD"

But by far the Christian tattooers favorite excuse for disobeying Leviticus 19:28 is the "that means nor print any marks upon you – for the DEAD". It’s ok, as long it’s not for the dead". See the "for the dead!!! . .for the dead!!!!".

Is it ok to practice satanic bloodletting, self mutilation or cutting of the flesh as long as it’s not for the dead? It’s in the same verse. . . Hmmm. . .?

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:28
Notice also, the phrase "for the dead" is ONLY referencing the "cuttings in your flesh". The condemnation of "nor print ANY marks upon you" is not qualified by the phrase "for the dead". Also, if you’ll notice the verse clearly says "ANY marks" period.

Merrill F. Unger's, very popular and authoritative, Unger's Bible Dictionary under the definition for "Mark" includes the following reference for Leviticus 19:28:

"In Lev. 19:28 we find two prohibitions of an unnatural disfigurement of the body: 'Ye shall not make any cutting in your flesh for the dead, nor any print any marks upon you.' The latter (Heb. qa aqa, incision) refers to tattooing, and has no reference to idolatrous usages, but was intended to inculcate upon the Israelietes a proper reverence for God's creation."
(Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1974 ed., p. 696)
Notice that Unger teaches that tattoos were forbidden without any reference to pagan, heathen, or idolatrous usages. In other words, the tattoo itself, regardless the reason, was forbidden. Amen. Brother Unger.

Wycliffe’s Bible Encyclopedia under the definition for TATTOOING distinctly says:

"While ‘cuttings in the flesh’ have reference here to mourning customs [for the dead], the tattooing does not appear to pertain to such practice."
(Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1975 ed., p. 1664)
The New American Commentary on Leviticus 19:28 writes the condemnation was for, "cutting the body either for the dead or with tattoo marks." (Mark F. Rooker, The New American Commentary on Leviticus, 2000 ed., p. 262) Explicitly recognizing the tattoo was not "for the dead."

Do you see how dishonest and disobedient this "it doesn’t apply to my New-Testament-Christian-marked-for-Jesus-tattoo" is? Find what you don’t like in the Word of God, cut it out (doesn’t apply to New Testament Christians) or misapply (it’s just for the DEAD, when it’s clearly NOT). Same tactics used by the satanic cults and heretics for years. You can prove anything and everything with such deceitful methods.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1181527' date='Jan 31 2007, 05:52 PM']
How do they get around Leviticus 19:28?

Clearly, there it is. "Ye shall not. . .print any marks upon you. . ."

A lot of Christians when confronted with Leviticus 19:28, scream, "Hey dude, that’s not for today. Man, that’s the Old Testament. I’m under the New Testament".

Did you know that "bestiality" (sicko, perverted, sex with an animal) was ONLY forbidden in the Old Testament Levitical Law? Only in Leviticus 18:23 and Leviticus 20:15-16. Dude, only in the Old Testament Law. Does that mean a Holy God NOW – under the New Testament, approves of bestiality?

By the way, have you ever read Leviticus 19:29? The verse immediately AFTER the "it’s not for me" Leviticus 19:28?

Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
Leviticus 19:29
This is the only place in the Bible that God directly forbids someone to prostitute their daughter. And since, it’s ONLY in the Old Testament Levitical Law (and "hey, dude, we’re NOT under the law") – it MUST be ok by the Lord for a parent to cause their daughter to prostitute.

Same sick, perverted, wicked, line of reasoning as the "it’s ONLY in the Old Testament-tattoo-bearer-wearer". Same reasoning. . . Same disobedience. . . Same perversion of the Word of God.

There are many other "moral laws’ that are ONLY forbidden in the Old Testament, such as the human sacrifice of children. No where in the New Testament is this forbidden. Does that mean that NOW under the New Testament, God Almighty endorses throwing babies into the fire as a human sacrifice?

And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 18:21
Matthew Henry’s Commentary at the beginning of Leviticus 19 explains that most of Leviticus 19 (such as verse 19:28) are moral commandments that applies not only for Israel but for the New Testament Christian today.

"Some ceremonial precepts there are in this chapter, but most of them are moral. . . Most of these precepts are binding on us, for they are expositions of most of the ten commandments."
(Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Leviticus 19:28)
IT’S ONLY "FOR THE DEAD"

But by far the Christian tattooers favorite excuse for disobeying Leviticus 19:28 is the "that means nor print any marks upon you – for the DEAD". It’s ok, as long it’s not for the dead". See the "for the dead!!! . .for the dead!!!!".

Is it ok to practice satanic bloodletting, self mutilation or cutting of the flesh as long as it’s not for the dead? It’s in the same verse. . . Hmmm. . .?

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:28
Notice also, the phrase "for the dead" is ONLY referencing the "cuttings in your flesh". The condemnation of "nor print ANY marks upon you" is not qualified by the phrase "for the dead". Also, if you’ll notice the verse clearly says "ANY marks" period.

Merrill F. Unger's, very popular and authoritative, Unger's Bible Dictionary under the definition for "Mark" includes the following reference for Leviticus 19:28:

"In Lev. 19:28 we find two prohibitions of an unnatural disfigurement of the body: 'Ye shall not make any cutting in your flesh for the dead, nor any print any marks upon you.' The latter (Heb. qa aqa, incision) refers to tattooing, and has no reference to idolatrous usages, but was intended to inculcate upon the Israelietes a proper reverence for God's creation."
(Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1974 ed., p. 696)
Notice that Unger teaches that tattoos were forbidden without any reference to pagan, heathen, or idolatrous usages. In other words, the tattoo itself, regardless the reason, was forbidden. Amen. Brother Unger.

Wycliffe’s Bible Encyclopedia under the definition for TATTOOING distinctly says:

"While ‘cuttings in the flesh’ have reference here to mourning customs [for the dead], the tattooing does not appear to pertain to such practice."
(Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1975 ed., p. 1664)
The New American Commentary on Leviticus 19:28 writes the condemnation was for, "cutting the body either for the dead or with tattoo marks." (Mark F. Rooker, The New American Commentary on Leviticus, 2000 ed., p. 262) Explicitly recognizing the tattoo was not "for the dead."

Do you see how dishonest and disobedient this "it doesn’t apply to my New-Testament-Christian-marked-for-Jesus-tattoo" is? Find what you don’t like in the Word of God, cut it out (doesn’t apply to New Testament Christians) or misapply (it’s just for the DEAD, when it’s clearly NOT). Same tactics used by the satanic cults and heretics for years. You can prove anything and everything with such deceitful methods.
[/quote]
You circumcise your sons on the 8th day?
So you only eat kosher meat?
Worship in the Temple or local synogogue?
Follow all the proscriptions of the Old Testament?
I bet.


Christians do not live under Old Testament law.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1181561' date='Jan 31 2007, 06:17 PM']
You circumcise your sons on the 8th day?
So you only eat kosher meat?
Worship in the Temple or local synogogue?
Follow all the proscriptions of the Old Testament?
I bet.
Christians do not live under Old Testament law.
[/quote]

Right. Ours is a revealed religion. God revealed "x" amount of Himself under the Old Covenant. But His ultimate revelation was made in the Person of Jesus Christ in the New Covenant. All of God's requirements are fulfilled by loving Him with all our heart, soul, strength and mind, and loving our neighbor as ourself. That's it. In Jesus the Law is fulfilled. Again, that doesn't give us license (I'm covering ground here much better covered by St. Paul), but again, holiness is a faith response to God, not something based on outward proscription.

[Katholikos]

[b][i]Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,

there's always laughter and good red wine.

At least I've always found it so,

Benedicamus Domino! [/i][/b]

Hilaire Belloc

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1181778' date='Jan 31 2007, 08:44 PM']
[b][i]Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,

there's always laughter and good red wine.

At least I've always found it so,

Benedicamus Domino! [/i][/b]

Hilaire Belloc
[/quote]
: I was just looking for that quote

[Katholikos]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1181784' date='Jan 31 2007, 08:50 PM']
: I was just looking for that quote
[/quote]It's taped to my computer! Go tell it on the mountain! Catholic life is joyful! The fruit of Truth is joy.

[Paddington]

Women with short hair and men with long hair. There aren't very many of either that are trying to resemble the other gender or that actually do resemble the other gender.

Pants are overall more practical than skirts. There is no longer a "cross-dressing" vibe to women wearing pants. But, as a man, I would never wear a skirt. Yuck!

[SJRod55]

Music and art are open to individual interpretation, as are many classic works of literature, especially poetry, throughout the ages. What one person might see as 'evil' might not 'affect' another in the same way. There are many types of 'music' I totally dislike and perhaps they verge on being 'Satanic' however that does not mean they 'are'.

[Akalyte]

Anti-Catholics, please stop telling the author what their own book says. You didnt write and put the bible together. Historically, that was done by the Catholic Church. Therefore it's the Catholic church that knows her book. It's not your job to interpret the bible. That's left up to the Magesterium of the Catholic church. So chill....

[Paddington]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1183701' date='Feb 3 2007, 11:56 AM']
Anti-Catholics, please stop telling the author what their own book says. You didnt write and put the bible together. Historically, that was done by the Catholic Church. Therefore it's the Catholic church that knows her book. It's not your job to interpret the bible. That's left up to the Magesterium of the Catholic church. So chill....
[/quote]

But Catholics use the Bible to convert Protestants. That is like saying "consider interpreting it the same way as us with your God-given brain." Your comments sound just like "check your mind at the door." That turns people off. Also, Catholics can thank Protestants for a whole lot of Biblical scholarship. If Jaroslav Pelikan was correct, Catholics were far behind Protestants in that area until recently. And his own tradition (Orthodox, who also claim to have written the Bible) was far behind the Catholic one. You also talk as if Catholicism is self-evident. I doubt you actually think that.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1184485' date='Feb 4 2007, 01:35 AM']But Catholics use the Bible to convert Protestants. That is like saying "consider interpreting it the same way as us with your God-given brain." Your comments sound just like "check your mind at the door." That turns people off. Also, Catholics can thank Protestants for a whole lot of Biblical scholarship. If Jaroslav Pelikan was correct, Catholics were far behind Protestants in that area until recently. And his own tradition (Orthodox, who also claim to have written the Bible) was far behind the Catholic one. You also talk as if Catholicism is self-evident. I doubt you actually think that.
[/quote]Catholicism (which is original Christianity) is not self-evident. If it were, there would have been no need of the Apostles. That's why Christ formed a Church and left the Apostles to teach, and they taught others -- the Bishops of the Catholic Church -- to replace themselves. The Catholic Church wrote the NT and produced the Bible (canonized both the OT and NT and put them into one book, which she named Ta Biblia -- The Bible). Sixteen centuries later, Protestants began telling the Church what her own book means -- now there are thousands of denominations, all based on the same 66-book cut version of the Bible, no two of which agree, and each claiming that they teach the Truth.

Does the teacher of mathematics tell me I'm "checking my mind at the door" when I believe that 2 + 2 = 4? Shall I use my "God given intellect" to disagree with the Truth? Is Christianity multiple choice? The NT tells us that the Catholic Church is "the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar the bulwalk of the truth" 1 Tm 3:15.

Christianity is a revealed religion. We can either believe what God revealed to His Church, or we can make it up ourselves, as Protestants do. And they all use the Bible to "prove" it.

As Luther said, Scripture, like wax noses, can be twisted to fit [anything you wish it to mean].

Jay

[Paddington]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1184738' date='Feb 4 2007, 07:42 PM']
Catholicism (which is original Christianity) is not self-evident. If it were, there would have been no need of the Apostles. That's why Christ formed a Church and left the Apostles to teach, and they taught others -- the Bishops of the Catholic Church -- to replace themselves. The Catholic Church wrote the NT and produced the Bible (canonized both the OT and NT and put them into one book, which she named Ta Biblia -- The Bible). Sixteen centuries later, Protestants began telling the Church what her own book means -- now there are thousands of denominations, all based on the same 66-book cut version of the Bible, no two of which agree, and each claiming that they teach the Truth.

Does the teacher of mathematics tell me I'm "checking my mind at the door" when I believe that 2 + 2 = 4? Shall I use my "God given intellect" to disagree with the Truth? Is Christianity multiple choice? The NT tells us that the Catholic Church is "the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar the bulwalk of the truth" 1 Tm 3:15.

Christianity is a revealed religion. We can either believe what God revealed to His Church, or we can make it up ourselves, as Protestants do. And they all use the Bible to "prove" it.

As Luther said, Scripture, like wax noses, can be twisted to fit [anything you wish it to mean].

Jay
[/quote]

Catholicism is not self-evident without the magisterium. I agree.
Are you trying to say that it now is self-evident because of the magisterium? I doubt that you are. I hope you are not.
Religion is nothing like math. Math teachers, unlike many religious teachers from all traditions, do not ask anybody to "check their mind at the door."
Also, Luther came 15 centuries after Christ. And 11 centuries after the Council of Carthage. Since Christ, there have been 20 problematic centuries in Christendom.
Christ's quote "the gates of hell will not prevail against (the church)" is ambiguous. Christ knows that.
Faith and non-faith should be seen more as the accidental condition of one's soul when God invites or does not invite one into his family. That would be logical and scriptural. This board has too much of Vin Lewis' attitude that Protestants are "either stupid or lying."

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1184835' date='Feb 4 2007, 08:27 PM']
Catholicism is not self-evident without the magisterium. I agree.
Are you trying to say that it now is self-evident because of the magisterium? I doubt that you are. I hope you are not.
Religion is nothing like math. Math teachers, unlike many religious teachers from all traditions, do not ask anybody to "check their mind at the door."
Also, Luther came 15 centuries after Christ. And 11 centuries after the Council of Carthage. Since Christ, there have been 20 problematic centuries in Christendom.
Christ's quote "the gates of hell will not prevail against (the church)" is ambiguous. Christ knows that.
Faith and non-faith should be seen more as the accidental condition of one's soul when God invites or does not invite one into his family. That would be logical and scriptural. This board has too much of Vin Lewis' attitude that Protestants are "either stupid or lying."
[/quote]
I don't think protestants are stupid or lying [ not that that couldn't be, but you know what I mean], they have been misled. I think it was Chesterson who said "to study history is to cease to be protestant".
For me it is simple history: what the Church says today can be found in the church of the past all the way back to the Fathers and the Apostles. The voice of Pope St Clement still speaks after 1900 years.


"The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

chapter 42, Letter to the Corinthians {about AD 96]

Same Church now as then.

[Paddington]

Thanks cmother.
It would be nice if that totally did it for me. It almost does.
The quote was Cardinal Newman. Maybe Chesterton too. *shrug*