What do you think of Tattoos?

[post]

1 hour ago, HAZARD said:

No, I wont have anything tattoo'd on my forehead. His name will be forever in my heart and on my mind, not on my skin?

the book literally says His name will be on their foreheads . . ? 

yes maybe that's just poetic language. you know how those who call themselves 'christians' ((on a whole - including those who are not really of us)) are though -- they will say one thing is poetic, and another thing isn't if it suits their private interpretations and preconceptions. and not always without good reason, but sometimes, in fact with no good reason at all. 

but i think at that time, we'll have a different idea of what the word "figurative" means. 


don't you find it interesting that it's "figuratively" used as a symbol honoring God in a few places in scripture, though it's physically prohibited in Leviticus for the Jews? 







 

[post]

i've read discussion a few times, whether that particular verse ((Leviticus 19:28)) is being read correctly in associating all tattoo marks or all marks on the body with that prohibition. it is in the same context with the prohibition against making cuts on the body for the dead ((a pagan practice, mentioned also when Elijah strove against the prophets of Ba'al)), and it could be that this is specifically prohibiting the Jews from also following pagan ritualistic, idolatrous customs of making tattoo marks ((which involve cutting the body)). 
it is not, for example, considered wrong by rabbinic tradition to lance a wound ((which is cutting the body)) - because the prohibition is against doing it for the sake of idolatry. and it is not wrong according to their tradition to put ashes in a wound, which also leaves a mark just as a tattoo would -- because the wound itself shows that it was not meant to be a tattoo, but a medicinal practice. tattoos were sometimes used religiously as a symbol of 'ownership' identifying a worshiper with the idol. if the mark was made in a non-permanent way, a vow could be broken, but if it was tattooed, the devotion to that idol was sealed. there is some thought that it is exactly this kind of religious use that is being prohibited -- not tattoos in general -- because it is directly associated with the prohibition against cutting, which is directly related to idolatry by the text itself. the context does not change in the text of the law, so the principle is that the following prohibition, against permanently marking the body, is with regard to the same context. 

i don't know what to think of all that. thank God i am not under law, but grace! it's a headache, and how dangerous to get it wrong, if there was no mercy in God! 


since a lot of this thread has to do with appeals to the Torah, and the Law, i thought someone might be interested in what Jewish rabbis have to say about it -- since if you were actually under the law, this should be your authority on interpreting it. they are very conservative on the issue: marking with a pen is OK, but no marking whatsoever that is permanent is OK, though with varying levels of 'not OK' ((as though breaking the law in some ways isn't as bad as others, lol)) and a Jew with a tattoo can still be buried in a Jewish cemetery, and it is not required that tattoos be removed. 

so here's a link to a rabbinic discussion -- http://www.rabbimanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Tattoos-and-Body-Piercing.pdf

[post]

before anyone starts making assumptions about me personally -- i have no tattoos, and no desire for one. if i were to get a tattoo, i think on my hand "belonging to YHWH" would be the only thing i would really consider, and/or a wedding ring. 

i don't condemn anyone for a tattoo, whether they have one already or are considering getting one. we are not under law, but grace, and we were born gentiles, never having been baptized into Moses. we are free! 

but not all things are wise. is a tattoo wise? i am not wise enough to make that decision for anyone. i'm not going to pretend to be. 

there are a few interesting points of discussion about justifying them that i think many people never consider -- and i tried to relate some of that ((probably poorly)). that's all i really had to contribute 

but don't think i'm either trying to overturn the Law, or that i'm trying to hold any one as having been found in Christ up to the standard of the "ministration of death" either. 

[post]

1 hour ago, HAZARD said:

God's Word is inspired into whatever language it is translated.

 

1 hour ago, HAZARD said:

“Inspiration” means that God got a hold of the head of those men, the heart of those men, and the hand of those men, and guided them to say what He wanted them to say!

then the ESV is every bit the inspired word of God as the KJV is. 

i'm glad you agree 

[post]

3 hours ago, post said:

the Hebrew actually just says "will write his hand the LORD's" 
neither 'with' nor 'on' -- that's implied by context. 

זֶ֤ה יֹאמַר֙ לַֽיהוָ֣ה אָ֔נִי וְזֶ֖ה יִקְרָ֣א בְשֵֽׁם־יַעֲקֹ֑ב וְזֶ֗ה יִכְתֹּ֤ב יָדֹו֙ לַֽיהוָ֔ה וּבְשֵׁ֥ם יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל יְכַנֶּֽה׃ פ
 . . .
what does context imply here? where do you think a person will write "belonging to Jah" if not on his own body? because that seems to me to be exactly what is going on here - saying they belong to the Lord, taking Israel as a surname - writing "property of YHWH" on . . what? themselves. 
 

it's my fault because i asked you if you believe that the KJV is the be-all, end-all of English translations of the preserved Hebrew & Greek scripture ((since you kinda indicated as much, giving no other justification but 'the KJV says so')) -- 

______________________________________________

but you didn't answer this question. the text of the scripture itself does not say "with" or "on" at all -- both of those words are added by interpretation, looking at the context. so since the context here is that a person in that day will be making it public that their own bodies belong to God, what exactly do you think the scripture is describing a person in that day writing 'belonging to God' will be writing that phrase on? 

_______________________________________________

i really think that
another will write with his hand, 'THE LORD'S'
does not make sense contextually at all. of course he will write with his hand! what else, with his toes? but what will he write on? just anything? the dirt? some notecards? a birthday cake? his tennis racket? his facebook wall? what does context demand? 
i think it's entirely possible that "with" was chosen to be inserted here specifically out of fear of this being used to justify tattoos. 
rather, 
another will write on his hand, 'THE LORD's' 
makes a whole lot more sense contextually - that the body belongs to God ((re: Romans 6:13-14, 12:1-2, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, etc)) and standing in direct contrast to the mark of the beast ((Revelation 13:16, 14:9)), and as i discussed in a previous post, making direct reference to priesthood and to "instruments for righteousness" i.e. articles used for worship, set apart and made holy to God. in this way, it is understood that the hand belongs to God: that the actions a man performs are for Him, and it perfectly complements Revelation 22:3-5 which mentions His name written on the forehead ((again referring also to priesthood, Exodus 28:36-38)) in its direct contrast to the mark of the beast, on the hand and on the forehead. 

_______________________________________________

so what do you think? 
how do you think this should be read -- whether it is figurative or not -- how should this be read in English?






 

Edited July 5, 2016 by post
spelling & format

[post]

2 hours ago, Davida said:

The Damnable English Standard Version

By David J. Stewart

you want me to find a couple pages of criticism of the KJV to copy/paste? 
those exist too, you know.

or were you going to address the topic? you know, those questions i had? 

thanks. 
 

[post]

what about this lol 

would this be kosher

[JoshuaB]

On 5/27/2016 at 2:27 AM, shiloh357 said:

I know older people who have them and are sorry they got them.   They are cool when you're young and your skin is tight and firm.  But when a person gets old and wrinkled and their skin sags, the tattoos are just ugly.

That's an excellent point you have made. 

[GoldenEagle]

14 hours ago, Davida said:

Sorry, G.E. I don't think for a moment that Jesus has a tattoo on his thigh or any mark that looks remotely anything like a tattoo. Will it be on the thigh of His Robe or on Him? GOD knows.  The Lord of Lords and King of Kings - however it will be Radiant Light. imho  

Hiya Davida!  

Yes, it's really open to interpretation. Only God knows. Is it possible it's on His robe? Yes. Is it possible it's a tattoo? Yes. We do agree that Jesus will return as King of Kings and Lord of Lords!  

Essential to the faith: Jesus will return.

Non-essential to the faith: Will Jesus have a tattoo or a name on his robe?

God bless,
GE

[GoldenEagle]

14 hours ago, post said:

one day i will have a "tattoo" on my forehead. 

that is your hope too; isn't it? 

No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light.
(Revelation 22:3-5)

Yes I hope to indeed!