I know Leviticus says no tattoos, but it also says a woman is unclean for 7 days after her period, and no mixed linens for clothing shall be worn etc etc.  Isnt that still under the old covenant before Jesus died for our sins?  So now theres no more sacrificing just repentance, right?
206332
Dont live you life according to a book, live it however you feel!
288147
14. B \n\n15. Obviously, Jesus obeyed the traditions that were expected of any Jew, or He would never have gone to the Temple as a baby to be circumcised. "Moses seat" is a tradition, because it is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. So its A and B.
505597
Hi Rodney. Good evening/day.Very good subject! First of all, in case anyone does not know what sin is, let's define it.  Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. or MKJV- Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness-1John 3:4. Myself included, we need to ensure that we know what sin is so that we can be sincerely repentant and strive to not commit sins. You are correct everyone sins, that is why Jesus - the perfect Son of God who was sinless died for our sins and rose from the dead. Second, the word rapture is not in the Bible. Jesus will return to raise the dead and claim those of us who are saved. John 3:13 says  -And no one has ascended up to Heaven except He who came down from Heaven, the Son of Man who is in Heaven. May God Bless  you.
177507
Good question!\n\nHere is one of paul's new laws:\n\n\n1 Cor 11:5-7\n5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-- it is just as though her head were shaved.\n6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.\n7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.\n\n\nOf course this don't apply to our time so we don't keep'em.\n\nBible = faulty
598354
SATAN!!!\nDe 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
51790
Being circumcised means removeal of the forskin. It is usually done at birth. In the Bible it was a form of Covenant between God and His children. It most likely has it's good reasons as well as bad ones. Easier to keep clean, but maybe less sensitive because the forskin is a protective covering. With the forskin you must be sure not to leave any soap or you may be one unhappy camper if you scratch the blood out of yourself in your sleep. I think in this day and time it is a matter of preference. If you are 19 and have had no problem, my advice would be, If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Since I am a female this may be considered wrong advice but I am a Mom and I am answering you just as if you were my own son asking me. Did your Mom not talk to you about this when you asked questions or your Dad? Maybe they were embarrased, but they should have told you or at least let your family doctor explain about it. By the way I have a son, he is circumcised just like his dad was.Oh yes, Christ was circumcised just as all Jewish males were. And I have heard(though I can't speak from first hand knowledge) it is painful for a baby boy and more so for an adult. Best to ask a doctor on that. It seems I read somewhere that keeping the foreskin makes a man more likely to get cancer, but I might be wrong on that point...again talk to a doctor. I hope you and others will find my advice sound and full of good judgement.
265571
"...without the shedding of blood is no remission of sins."  Hebrews 9:22\n\nGod requires a blood sacrifice to wash away sin and cleanse the heart of all who believe.  The symbology is found in the life's blood of the sacrifice...one life to repay for another.  Why?  Because God said so.\n\nJesus Christ is the "once for all" sacrifice.  He gave His life, so that all might live.  Whoever turns from their sins, and believes in Him, that He truly did this for us, also believes God.  This is the cleansing and washing away of sin that is acceptable to God.  God declares all who believe Him as "righteous" (justifies them) by His grace because He loves us.  Those who turn from their sin and are redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ are given the Spirit of God to dwell in them and teach them and help them obey God.  \n\nSo, Christ died that all might live.  This is the will of the Father who is not willing that any should perish (die the second final death).  Will all receive eternal life?  No, sadly.  Those who reject God will still bear the penalty for not receiving the cleansing by believing on Jesus.  The penalty is death.\n\n"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."  Romans 3:23\n\n"But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."  Romans 5:8-9\n\n"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed uon all men, for that all have sinned."  Romans 5:12\n\n"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."  Romans 6:23\n\n"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Romans 10:9\n\n"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."  Romans 10:13\n\n"...for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ...So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."  Romans 14:10-12
176205
Kudos to the asker.\n\nTo Christians/Catholics/whatevers who cite the Bible: Homosexuality is noted as a sin in the Old Testament. What else was in the old testament? You can't touch a woman when she's on her period. A woman is unclean during her period. In order to become clean again, the woman or the man that touched her must bathe in a river over their head. \n\nYeah, because that totally makes sense...\n\nBesides, a law cannot be made because of a religion. It's called separation of church and state.
133434
Children in most cases.\n\nThe woman with the issue of blood in the NT who is healed by touching the hem of Jesus's garment was having her period for 12 years.  So it can mean blood, or sperm in the case of Onan in the OT.
345316
YES, if you're asking about OT times (prior to the time of Jesus' death).  This is the reason why Jesus' celebacy should be unquestioned.  Leviticus 15:16-18 reads:\n\n16 ‘If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall wash all his body in water, and be unclean until evening. 17 And any garment and any leather on which there is semen, it shall be washed with water, and be unclean until evening. 18 Also, when a woman lies with a man, and there is an emission of semen, they shall bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.\n\nThe whole point of Jesus being a perfect sacrifice is that He never sinned and He was never defiled.  As you can see from the passage quoted above, ejaculation defiles a man.  Therefore, as difficult as it may seem for us to understand, Jesus never had sex.\n\nHowever, Christians under the New Covenant are not subject to Leviticus 15.\n\nPeace.
54285
Look at the whole chapter, Leviticus 11:::\n\n                 Leviticus 11:1  And the Etrnl spake unto \n                 Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2  \n                 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, \n                 These are the beasts which ye shall eat \n                 among all the beasts that are on the \n                 earth. 3  Whatsoever......\n\nit goes on to say what is edible from the domesticated animals (must both chew its cud and have cloven hoofs), and from the waters (must have fins and scales).\n\nFurthermore, the animals must be killed by humans (road-kill is outlawed):::\n\n                Exodus 22:31  And ye shall be holy men unto \n                me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is \n                torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast \n                it to the dogs. \n\nThere are four levels to keeping kosher. The first, defined by the Bible, is the list of animals 'fit' or 'proper' to be eaten. This is found as you read above from Leviticus 11.\n\nThe next level is how the animal is slaughtered. It must be done as instantly and as painlessly as possible. This is insured by making the slaughtering a religious ritual so that it must be done the same way every time.\n\nThe third level is how the meat is prepared. Jews are forbidden to eat blood::\n\n          Leviticus 17:10  And whatsoever man there \n          be of the house of Israel, or of the \n          strangers that sojourn among you, that \n          eateth any manner of blood; I will even \n          set my face against that soul that eateth \n          blood, and will cut him off from among \n          his people. 11  For the life of the flesh \n          is in the blood: and I have given it to \n          you upon the altar to make an atonement \n          for your souls: for it is the blood that \n          maketh an atonement for the soul. 12  \n          Therefore I said unto the children of \n          Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, \n          neither shall any stranger that \n          sojourneth among you eat blood. \n\nTherefore as much of the blood as is possible must be removed. The way this is done is by a very very thick, course salt. The meat is covered with it, the salt soaks up much of the blood, and then the bloody salt is washed off. This is repeated a few times.\n\nThe fourth level is how the meat is served. The Bible tells us that one must not boil a baby goat in its own mother's milk. It was a pagan, not Jewish, custom to take a baby goat and boil it alive in its own mother's milk. The pagans felt this was some sort of magical thing, that the life-giving milk killed the animal instead....who can understand the pagan mentality? At any rate, Gd forbids the Jews from the horrible practice, and so in 3 places in the Bible::\n\n          Exodus 23:19  The first of the \n          firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring \n          into the house of the LORD thy God. Thou \n          shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's \n          milk. \n\n          Exodus 34:26  The first of the \n          firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring \n          unto the house of the Etrnl thy Gd. Thou \n          shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's  \n          milk. \n\n          Deuteronomy 14:21  Ye shall not eat of \n          any thing that dieth of itself: thou \n          shalt give it unto the stranger that is \n          in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou \n          mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou \n          art an holy people unto the Etrnl thy Gd. \n          Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his \n          mother's milk. \n\nFrom this the Jews learn another lesson, and that is that Gd does not want us to mix life, which is the milk, with death, which is the meat. Jews who keep these laws dont mix milk or milk products with meat or meat products, to stay holy to Gd. Remember that 'holy' means 'different, set ap
484603
Prominent in the Gospels is the mention of Jesus' intact body being respectfully treated and interred by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. Jesus' body was not literally consumed by animals or humans.\n\n(John 19:38-40) Joseph from Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus but a secret one out of his fear of the Jews, requested Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. Therefore he came and took his body away. 39 Nicodemus also... 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it up with bandages with the spices\n\n\nConsumption of blood has been forbidden since Noah's time, and both cannibalism and abuse of blood were forbidden by the Jewish Mosaic Law. Since the Mosaic Law was not abolished until after Jesus' death; the ceremony mentioning "flesh" and "blood" which Jesus instituted would not have been understood with any hint of literalness by the apostles (See Matt 26; Mark 14; Luke 22).\n\nAt the "Last Supper", Jesus was preparing his disciples for his departure from earth. He was teaching them to use the bread and wine as symbols of Christ's sacrificial offering of his own flesh and blood; these symbols would be featured at future observances of that "Memorial" celebration.\n\nThe most significant "Memorial" one could observe is, of course, the Memorial of Christ's death; even today that annual commemoration is still called "the Last Supper" or "the Lord's Evening Meal".\n\n(1 Corinthians 11:23-25, NWT) The Lord Jesus in the night in which he was going to be handed over took a loaf... Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 25 He did likewise respecting the cup.. Keep doing this... in remembrance of me.” \n\n(1 Cor 11:24, 25, NEB) "Do this as a memorial of me.” \n\n\nChrist Jesus himself personally celebrated and explained the significance of that Last Supper to his followers (see Matthew 26:26-29). Apparently Jesus Christ established the occasion to supersede the Jewish Passover, which occurs after sunset on the 14th of Nisan (a month of the Jewish calendar).\n\n(Luke 22:14-16) At length when the hour came, he reclined at the table, and the apostles with him. 15 And [Jesus] said to them: “I have greatly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you, I will not eat it again until it becomes fulfilled in the kingdom of God.\n\n\nSadly, it is only a minority of professed Christians who follow the BIBLICAL pattern for the Last Supper which was established by Christ himself. Sadly, most of Christendom ignores Christ's celebration and instead follow unrelated human traditions which purport to honor Christ, but in ways unconnected with what Jesus Christ established.\n\nLike the former Passover, those Christians who commemorate the Last Supper have also done so on the date corresponding to Nisan 14, which generally falls between late March and mid-April. Interestingly, Christians in the centuries immediately after Christ's impalement were sometimes called "Quartodecimans" which literally mean "fourteen-ers"\n\n\nThere are fundamental differences between the Memorial which Christ Jesus instituted and the so-called "Easter" which Christendom adopted from pagan worship of the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre (or Oestre). While most Easter celebrations merely repackage pagan fertility festivals and concentrate on eating, decorating, and frivolity, the Last Supper focuses on the value of Christ's sacrifice and the sober obligation of Christianity. \n\n(Matthew 15:6-9) You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said, 8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”\n\nLearn more:\nhttp://watchtower.org/e/lmn/article_0
613254
Actually the laws that were done away with are the "laws contained in ordinances".\nSite:\nhttp://community.webshots.com/photo/80628344/2012353330047993148Lqpai\n\nMany people confuse these with the Seventh Day Sabbath and Sabbath Feast Days.\n\n\nThe Laws Contained in Ordinances = Eph.2:15 & Col.2:15\n**It seems that most believe these two texts are saying that the Sabbath and/or Sabbath Feasts are done away with. Let me ask you a question: who wrote these books; wasn't it Paul? Paul kept the Sabbath (Acts 17:2) & Sabbath Feasts (Rom.5:11) like Jesus; then these texts must not be talking about that, when the Bible says to follow Jesus (Col.2:6) and the Apostles (Eph.2:20). If you believe the Bible is inspired (2Tim.3:16) & is the truth (John 17:17); continue on!\n**If everyone read the Bible clearly on these matters like Jesus did; then they're wouldn't be false interpetations! The Bible says in Colossians 2:16-17 "Let no man therefore judge you....which are a shadow of things to come" inwhich Jesus showed openly.\nIt explains some of these ordinances in Colossians 2:20-22 "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?"\nNow Hebrews 9:9-13 explains it more! \nSee: Heb.9:10 "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and diverse washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."\nThe other part to this about "judging on the Sabbath,...etc." are in: \nMark 2:23-28; 7:2-23; Luke 13:10-16; 14:1-3 & John 5:8-10; 7:23-24.\nNotice in every matter; the Pharisees thought it was wrong to eat with unwashed hands, to heal on the Sabbath, helping out people/animals on the Sabbath as other things; but Jesus always came back with Bible answers to them!\nSo what is actually done away with is "the judging of these days" and the animal sacrifices!
653280
The issue of modest dress is unfortunately contested by people worldwide because of the mistakes surrounding the scripturally unsound errors about clothes in the modern world.\n\nWhat is defined as modest apparel?  I will explain further what IS defined as modest apparel, friends.  According to 1Tim 2:9, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."\n\nThis is defined the standard of modest apparel, my good friends.  Rightly so, the Bible is scripturally sound on what is to be modest or costly.  For instance, costly apparel would be defined as clothes that are provocative or tempting.  A harlot's clothes would also fall into the category of costly apparel yet is brought into a negative light concerning the issue of whoredom which is not part of this topic.  Forgive me, indie.\n\nFor modest clothing, it would define from those words in 1Tim 2:9, "... in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety;..."  What then can be said from these words?  It can only be said that the women (and men, yes) wear modest clothings WITH shamefacedness AND sobriety.  That means in gender-specific issues of fashion on clothes, women must cover themselves from the head to the feet.  For men, they must wear clothes from head to feet that neither tempt nor bring a woman to lust after him.  If either gender lusts after one another, it is considered adultery.   \n\nWhat then defines adultery?  Let's look at Mat 5:28, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."\n\nLust, after all, is the driving force that is in league with costly apparel.  With the costly apparel displayed among women or men, it is rightly so that godly men and women, if not careful, would fall into temptation and seek wrongly the things of the world.  So adultery is defined in both the physical as well as the mental boundaries of lust.\n\nLet's look at other verses in Deuteronomy that will shed some light on modest apparel, shall we?\n\nLet's consider firstly the issue of cross-dressers, which is considered an abomination unto the Lord God.  Why is it considered an abomination by God?  In Deuteronomy 22:5, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."\n\nThe Lord God has said it is an abomination to gender-specific people to wear the opposite clothes.  No man can wear a woman's clothes as a woman cannot wear a man's clothes.  But, we did not shed some light on modest apparel, did we?\n\nThis may shed light concerning the issue of costly vs. modest.  The issue of the women who are pulling their clothes' skirt line high up the thigh is considered nudity before God.  With the world being conformed and catered to special interests as well as the delights of the world, take a look here at Isa 47:2-3, "...bare the leg, uncover the thigh....  Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man."\n\nSo if a woman revealed her thighs by buying costly apparel and tempting men to lust after her, this would be screaming full of shame.  God has said uncover the thigh and it is declared nudity, the bare flesh of a woman or man revealed to others.\n\nHe has also said vengeance willl not be visited by God as a man.  This could mean various but dreadful scenarios for women or men who may already have been in trouble without them realizing it.  When men are tempted easily enough to find her pleasant and think of carnal desire, there's no question there will be something happening.\n\nAccording to Psalm 31, there are words about coverings.  This would also detail modest apparel.  A woman is covering her entire body not because of t
617327
Yes, that is correct.\n\nTaking the Lord into an unclean body is a grave sin.  That is why there is a moment of prayer before one goes up to take the Eucharist - to ask for that forgiveness.  Also there is the community prayer "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the Word and I shall be healed."
656515
This an article that I am copying from a website. But, you have to differentiate between the original Torah and Injil, what became the Bible of today, and the original Scriptures, which has delibrately been lost and corrupt by early jews and christians. As you can see from the text, it is clear, the languge and the level of barbarity can't be attributed to a Merciful Compassionate God. The link below may answer your questions with regards to Islam. Peace.\nhttp://www.understanding-islam.org/related/search.asp?searchstr=Slavery&lookin=1&x=0&y=0\n\nText: Slavery in the Bible\n \n    Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do.  Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments.  The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.\n \n    Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants.  Many translations of the Bible use the word "servant", "bondservant", or "manservant" instead of "slave" to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is.  While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn't mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.\n \n    The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.\n \n    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)\n \n    The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.\n \n    If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)\n \n    Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave.  What kind of family values are these?\n \n    The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery.  How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?\n \n    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may
324258
A great deal of information can be found in the gospels of Matthew (starting with the birth of Jesus, in Matt 1:18),  Luke (starting in Chapter 1, specifically the birth is at 1:26) and John (starting in Chapter 1).\n\nThe gist of it is that the world fell into sin when Adam & Eve took from the forbidden tree & ate the fruit.  After that throughout the OT there were strict rules for how to deal or be cleansed of that sin.  Which included sacrifice.  In the NT the birth of Jesus was to be the perfect sacrifical lamb so that Jesus would pay the final price for all of our sins, no more sacrifices would need to be made, our sins would be paid for in full.  His death was that sacrifice.  Then he rose, joined God in heaven until he returns one last and final time.\n\nI have never heard any such phrase as "Here I am, I'll go bring man back under your grace".  That just sounds like interpretation of scripture, as I couldn't find anything in scripture that was similar to it in wording.\n\nThe entire Bible supports this information.