/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

America being a Christian country one of the biggest lies in history.

>>831912

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

(Deuteronomy 19:28)

>>831917

It's good advice, but it's not a command to Christians. The Council of Jerusalem specifically spelled out that the Mosaic laws that remain binding for all across the Church are laws on sexual immorality, not eating food offered to idols, and not cooking with/drinking blood (Acts 21:25). Only the most stubborn and disobedient thought they knew better and started forcing all of the other laws, to the point that they forced diet and circumcision as well. But the Apostles spoke. End of story. They have the keys of the kingdom. Nobody else.

>>831912

>He sought to reform both through words and actions.

You lost me.

Can reform be achieved by enlisting in the Israel Defense Force American Military?

>>832016

Do you even know the difference between moral and ceremonial laws? Or did you think that your passage annulls the rest of the moral law? We have a specific passage regarding not following the ceremonial laws in Romans 14, Colossians 2 and Hebrews 7, 8, 9. Where is the annullment of the moral law, though. There isn't one. We see the moral laws affirmed throughout the New Testament, so I don't see where you can annull them. If our body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, then going against God's commandment against cutting flesh or printing marks upon themselves is a sin. I'm sorry if you have to deal with people committing it.

Diet and circumcision are clearly annulled in the passages already mentioned. See Romans 14 for diet, Galatians 5:3, 6:13 for circumcision, Colossians 2:16 for diet, sabbath, and holy days, Hebrews 7-9 for general ceremonial laws (meats, drinks and divers washings). Trying to impose those therefore is Judaizing.

You haven't shown, however, where the moral law is annulled. Would you willingly go against the moral law and what Paul specifically said, You are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. That's the question. There is no question that printing these marks is a matter conforming to this world and disobedience in order to please other men in direct violation of God's moral law (Deuteronomy 19:28)

>>832019

I believe reform can be achieved by joining.

If you do, I would recommend the following:

>Exploring prayer/faith groups specifically designed for existing and retired service people, this can be a good sounding board for ideas

>Consider joining the chaplaincy service and develop your own oratory style

>Make yourself indispensable to people who need help or advice, once you do this they will be more eager to listen to what you have to say

>If you encounter people of other faiths, research those faiths and identify similarities to your own and encourage them to give your book a read

>Be seen to act as an advocate for fellow Christians

>>832034

I just told you what the Apostles said. They included both moral and ceremonial bindings at Jerusalem (sexual morality as well as forbidding idolaltry/blood, for example). If they wanted to extend it beyond that, they would have. They weren't ignorant, you know? They didn't somehow forget. You're doing the same thing that the Judaizers did - where you think it's not good enough and you're trying to "improve" upon the Apostles or assuming they left things out or made a mistake. Either that or you think Moses is greater than the Apostles. When Jesus himself gave them power to bind and loose.

>>832047

Honestly, just following these if very extensive if you think about it. Think of the myriad ways sexual immorality and idolatry still pop up. That's enough to combat for a lifetime, sadly. Above all, we're told to follow the command of love. That's implicitly tells you not to cheat, harm, steal, etc..

But Apostles stopped themselves from other things that would get in the way of the Good News for Gentiles. You think they didn't meet converts who didn't have tattoos? I bet they did. It was a common practice. Were they going to deny Christ to someone, just because of ink? That's crazy talk and insane. Anyone stopping a conversion for such a small thing will be cast into hell themselves.

>>832047

I'm glad you agree then that none of the moral law was annulled then.

The rest of what you're saying is a false accusation. However, I'm not saying this as a counter to you, because we are not to return railing for railing. I am much more glad to forgive.

>>832048

And by the way, I just want to make perfectly sure, you aren't implicitly suggesting that someone who fornicated in the past should be denied Christ?

If not, then why would you assume that of me; Look at the post I replied to, it was practically extolling the virtues of printing marks on the flesh. So if someone comes in here glorifying fornication, and you quoted Acts 21:25, will they then proceed to say you denied Christ to someone who fornicated in the past and is now repentant of it? Is that how logic works?

>>832061

I don't know what you yourself have done. So I'm not accusing you in particular. Just a you in general. There is no greater thing than for someone to come to Christ. The Apostles knew this and knew when to step out of the way, unlike the rabble of Pharisees who infiltrated the group and wanted all the Gentiles to LARP as Jews. We should all check ourselves before we wreck ourselves like this.

But this issue of tattoos isn't a moral law to begin with. It's a purity law. Much like the myriad of other things that caused a Jew to be unclean (proper washing of hands, kosher diet, proper time to handle a wife who is having her period, handling corpses). These weren't "ceremonies", since they had nothing to do with religious activities per se. They applied to all Jews across every waking moment. And they are not binding.

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

>>832066

>So I'm not accusing you in particular. Just a you in general.

That makes absolutely no sense but it's fine.

The Lord commanded us to be holy as he is holy, commanded us that certain things were an abomination to Him and told us not to conform ourselves to the world. There are specific places you can turn to where the ceremonial aspects regarding ritual purity when entering the temple were fulfilled by Christ shedding his blood on us. That isn't even an annullment, but rather a greater fulfillment. As it accomplishes that which the old Law by itself was only able to show was impossible for fallible beings as men. All of the things you brought up have to do with ritual purity and entering into the temple, they are not moral laws. Jesus himself of course perfectly fulfills these requirements. That does not annull the moral law which is what the apostles told us repeatedly: it remains true. Handling bodily fluids, illnesses and corpses falls under divers washings. If you look up scripture on each of those you will see that those who broke them were simply not permitted to enter the temple until a fixed time, it had nothing to do with what were moral laws. The apostle Paul tells us to sanctify the temple of the Holy Ghost which is our body. This is regardless of ritual purity, or dietary, sabbath or calendar or any other ceremonial law explicitly mentioned in the New Testament as being more perfectly fulfilled by Christ. All of the things God said were abominable then (breaking the moral law) are abomination today. Even if we do fail and sin, we need to return and acknowledge the fact that sin is sin. Take heed to God's word. If what Paul and the apostles said makes no difference to you, there's nothing else I can possibly bring. If you're sincerely believing the Old and New Testament and not just using it for your own purposes, you will realize this is true.

>>832070

>That makes absolutely no sense but it's fine.

We both read English, right? What's so hard to understand about it? I said I don't know you. I can't really hold a passing message board against you either. I'll chalk it up to an idle thought. But those who actively disparage people from coming to Christ for having tattoos will be cast into hell, for sure. No doubt about it. It's no different than the Pharisee who let a dying man rot away in the field, because he didn't want to lift a finger on the Sabbath.

>>832070

>The Lord commanded us to be holy as he is holy

Also, again, I say, he gave the Apostles power on what he specifically meant by holiness too (binding and loosing). Why are you incapable of trusting them? Do you think you know better than people who followed Christ in person? Do you think they were just forgetful men that overlooked some things? You refer to Moses as some way to provide legitimacy to extra commandments, but a greater group than Moses has come. It's called the Church and I teach you nothing but the first Church Council at Jerusalem. I'm not even telling you about extrabiblical councils - but something in the book of Acts itself. And you are still defiant somehow.

>>832073

If you think Acts 21:25 annulls the moral law, then you are misinterpreting it. I recommend that you read the rest of the Old and New Testaments.

>>832079

Tattoos were never a moral law to begin with. It's a purity law. Go tell anyone in any given ethics class across the planet about tattoos being a moral issue and prepare to get laughed at. There's nothing to discuss about it on a moral or philosophical angle.

And as for purity laws, again, for the third (or fourth?) time, I pointed out what purity laws were binding. That is, we must stay away from blood and strangled animals. If you want to talk about morals, I also pointed out that we must follow the law of Love. Everything moral can be summed up in this. Be it murder, theft, and other injustices. It all comes down to loving your neighbor as yourself. Secondly, the Apostles also added the moral clarity of forbidding sexual deviance.

If this isn't good enough for you, that's not my problem. I see that your problem isn't with me, but ultimately with the Jerusalem Council itself. For whatever reason. Maybe you're another person who grew up in a Adventist family. In which case, you're in a bonafide cult and should flee. Follow the Apostles instead. Or maybe you're another millennial seeking who has attached yourself to yet another strongman meme preacher on the internet. They're a dime a dozen, these guys. Maybe a Rob Skiba fan this time? Who knows. It's all Adventism or Armstrongism of some variety. In which case, you're still in a cult and need to follow the Apostles instead. They'll take care of you. Nobody else will.

>>832092

You can keep railing on me. Let it be known I forgive you. I just want to say, ethics classes are not what determine the truth in God's eyes.

And again, just to be substantially clear, the teaching in Acts 21 does not annull the moral law.

>>831912

Tattoos are satanic blood letting. The first thing to disappear from pagan communities when they adopted christianity was tattoos.

https://www.biblebelievers.com/watkins_tattoos/intro.html