@@monteirolobato6830 this theological thesis of jewish law fullfilled & revoked by Jesus himself is widely accepted in xtianity. That's why the majority of xtians don't follow jewish law, just the "New covenant". If fringe movements have different approaches, those exceptions just confirm the general belief.
I generally divide the prohibitions in the Bible into two groups. The first group is the stuff I do, which is no longer prohibited. Then there's the stuff everybody else does, which needed continues to be prohibited, and is sinful if performed.
baarbacoa, unless you are genealogically Jewish, then the majority of the ~613 mitzvot / commandments written in the Torah (aka: the Pentateuch) were never written to, or for you in the first place. Back in the day, the only non-Jews who were required to follow the mitzvot were goyim (aka: gentiles) in the conversion process, or those who wanted to live within the borders of the Kingdom of Israel, but not convert. In the later case, they were given a very limited set of commandments that are known today as the 'Seven Laws of Noah, or, the 7 Noachide Laws).
I've been wondering for a while where it points out the three divisions in the Hebrew Bible. So, now I know. It doesn't. It is simply cherry picking but with a fake foundation. This is why I listen to Dan. Knowledge is power.
It's weird how some modern people cling to the text of an old collections of documents, that they also feel free to enforce or ignore at their own will. iIm all for freedom of religion and bellief but surely all of Leviticus and Deuteronomy should be applied and lived by or none of it. Where do these people obtain the authority to pick and choose?
Moses only gave the 613 commandments as an inheritance to Israel, as Deuteronomy 33:4 states: "The Torah... is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob." In Torah law, Gentiles are not allowed to keep Jewish commandments as a religious obligation.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 I appreciate your point of view but the reality is that Moses probably never existed and what is written had its origins far later. That being said, whilst I would agree that the bible itelf does not command non-Jews to follow the laws of leviticus and Deuteronomy, Christians claim to be inheritors of the Hebrew bible and that it's purpose was to set the scene and to prophecy the coming of Jesus, their Messiah. I do not agree, of course, but if we accpt their reasoning, by what authority do they cherry pick from the scriptures?
Is there something wrong with picking and choosing? You can’t be pro-freedom of religion/beliefs in one breath and then in the same breath say people have to interpret their religious beliefs exactly in the way that you interpret it and you don’t even believe any of it is legitimate
@@NickSandt it becomes wrong when the pickers and choosers give god as the reason for imposing their selection of rules on others. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean that the religious are free to impose their manufactured hypocritical “morality” on the whole of society. Saying that Christians, if they actually followed their holy book, should behave differently is not infringing on their freedom. It’s just a perfectly legitimate questions about the lack of consistency between the prescribed rules and their behavior.
@@digitaljanus Pretty sure its rather clear in the text its cuttings or tattoos for "the dead"... There is nothing said for any other purpose. The specificity would have been left out if it included all other reasons.
@@CalebAyrania you remember incorrectly. “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead *or* tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.” “for the dead” clearly only refers to cuts on your body. Prohibition of tattoos has no qualifiers so it should be read as general.
Here it is. Explain the words and how they indicate your meaning.. וְשֶׂרֶט לָנֶפֶשׁ, לֹא תִתְּנוּ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם, וּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע, לֹא תִתְּנוּ בָּכֶם: אֲנִי, יְהוָה.
As a protestant, I myself am also frustrated at how the modern western church arbitrarily picks and chooses what laws to ignore or enforce.. the church should observe all of the laws, in every era, because each law has moral and ethical weight to it.
Im curious about that prohibiton on tonsures since catholic monks were once required to have them. To be fair required might be a stretch but ibhave seen many references to tonsured christian monks/priest in hiatorical depictions
Dan briefly mentions Acts 15...This is an *enormously* important chapter everyone should read, as it gives us a rare look behind the curtain to see "how the sausages are made", and honestly, I'm amazed it made it into the book! Basically, the elders of what we call the early Church have a debate to settle a doctrinal issue; they talk about it, vote on it, and agree to a consensus, then send out a mass letter to all the churches to update them on the new status quo, the text of which Acts claims to preserve. Interestingly, the letter claims that their new position was given to them/approved by, The Holy Spirit! Now, you can reread the chapter all you want, and THS is nowhere to be found (esp funny considering this is a book where supernatural events DO occur), so this is essentially illustrating the truth of religious history in a nutshell: Men mundanely deciding what they will tell others what to do, then sealing it with the authority of "GOD told me so!"
You might look into what many Christians understand as the force/inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You might be surprised. Or maybe you would be disappointed.
@Dan I think you should consider inviting Christine Hayes on your talk show and discuss this topic. The choices made of ceremonial and moral were not entirely "arbitrary", they are directly linked to the temple worship and thus become apparently "arbitrary" since Jews no longer have a central temple and Christians no longer distinguish in the Jewish way. (also Christine is an amazing academic IMHO)
My grandfather joined the Navy and tattooed his forearm in WWI. He became a pastor 5 years later and wore long-sleeved shirts for the next 60 years to hide his shame.
My non scholarly rebuttal to discarding old laws is that Jesus said not a letter of the law would be changed until heaven and earth were destroyed. We still have an earth. It's also fun to ask for the criteria that separates ceremonial law from moral law
My non-scholarly impression is that all of this would have been a non-issue if Jesus himself had not apparently been discarding old laws in the Gospels. A believer needs to find some explanation that allows these words and these actions to coexist. It isn't easy.
There's T Shirt makers on eBay. You type in almost anything there and there's shirts for it. I just bought a Megaman shirt not long ago from there from a shirt maker. It's good professional quality. Thick t shirts. Not the thin ones. Not cheap though
In fact James the Just considered the Law of Moses atomic or indivisible. While I do something similar, my justifications and methods are completely different and rely on the Epistle to the Galatians (I instead refer to stuff stated _only_ in the Torah, vs. stuff restated in the New Testament, and use that as the dividing line).
This reminds me of a young (Mormon) intern we had once, she asked my thoughts once about her boyfriend getting a tattoo of praying hands - she was quite upset because of this prohibition. "What would Jesus think?" I pointed out that Jesus would probably think about the same of the tattoo as He would about having bacon with breakfast. This confused her, and I pointed out that Jesus was Jewish and would follow the dietary restrictions. I cannot recall the rest of our conversation, but she didn't break up with him, so I am sure she managed to negotiate her understanding of the bible...
A significant portion of the population had a very small chance of surviving on their own. Volunteering to be a slave often guaranteed a higher quality of life than any other alternative for many.
Just a guess off the top of my head, recalling the very high mortality rate back then, one could find themselves in a situation where their family are all or mostly dead. Their family's holdings, if they ever had any to begin with, are gone. And they find themselves in debt slavery to a master who is not a total POS. Becoming a permanent slave could be preferable to gaining your freedom after a set period only to wind up right back in debt slavery after a period where you have no shelter, food, etc. Then, of course, there are the passages about tricking someone into slavery. So I imagine there were some underhanded scenarios one could cook up as well.
It has to do with making a family while enslaved. If you were a slave as an Israelite man, the law says you would go free in your 7th year. BUT while you were a slave you could also get married, and your wife could NOT go free when you did. If you loved her and/or you loved your master, you could volunteer to stay - and you'd be marked with a pierced ear to brand you. Having said that, apart from the fact it's written in the biblical law, I don't think we have any evidence of any of it actually being carried out.
For what I've gathered the Bible forbids the tearing of the flesh. Which by extension forbids tattoos because it's impossible to get a tattoo without tearing the skin.
Basically it meant that you can't eat obvious blood products, like blood pudding, and that any meat had to be processed or cooked in a way that was believed to remove blood, like salting the meat. You also had to check your eggs to make sure they didn't have blood spots. These are still things that kosher-observant Jews do today.
I'm inclined to believe it refers to live animals, but my context is quite different than most readers. I've raised and slaughtered my own livestock for at least 15 years
All depends on how you choose to interpret the text. I’m with the outspokenhumanist in the ‘Who gives a damn what the silly superstitious old book says’ camp.
@@boboak9168 Thank you. I would also question the idea of interpeting the text. You are right to say this is done but I have always wondered why people feel the need and presume the right to interpret what they consider to be the word of their god.
Well in the text it only says "for the dead" or "for the souls" so anything else would be permitted. (Then you have to interpret what that includes ofc)
If you’re a practicing Jew or Christian, the tattoo itself isn’t as much of an issue as the motivation for said tattoo (there are other issues involving community, but I’m on my lunch break and don’t have time lay that out).
The interpretation is one that I don't understand in detail, but there are procedures for draining the blood. Certainly there is some blood left in the tissue but that does not seem to be the issue for the Jews who insist of Kosher. Islam has dietary/sanitary standards, too.
Yes, you can drain most of the blood out. There will be traces left. Also, the reddish watery fluid that comes out of cooking beef isn't blood, it's hemoglobin. Not sure if that's a kosher distinction or not, but it's delicious 😊
People seek power. Ancient texts are a substrate upon which power can be negotiated, especially when the charms of youth fade. Speech, sex, and money are uniquely tied to power. Christ offers eternal life in the kingdom of God for the total surrender of earthly power. Or at least, Greco-Roman Christianity is making this offer. But why? Why would Jesus command the faithful to love their enemy? For what reason should the Israelites love the Amalakites? Why prohibit divorce? Why predict the destruction of the Temple?
Boomers and maybe even older Gen Xers can remember a time when good Christians thought that only disreputable sinners like sailors got tattoos. There was plenty of condemnation by Good People when tattoos started to become fashionable. Now it seems that young televangelists need tattoos in order to appear cool.
This same guy (I’m guessing): The Bible is crystal clear; don’t have fat sex Me: That’s written for a specific group of people and doesn’t apply to us today.
The Jerusalem Council’s opinion isn’t from Leviticus, it’s from an oral tradition about the 7 Noahide laws that bind Gentiles. The restriction on eating blood is related in Genesis 9 and both it and the prohibition on strangling are part of the animal cruelty law.
@@willthecameraman a valid point, but also a modern medical definition that has no bearing on what the author understood ‘blood’ to be. Also, consumer meat contains some haemoglobin too, as draining can’t remove it all. You would need to flush all the vessels extensively with another fluid to force it all out. This is also only a technicality, since the understood requirement was to bleed the animal at slaughter time. I think a lot of people take the New Testament command to abstain from blood too literally and read more into the author’s words than they intended.
@@willthecameraman two point 1) your saying that EVERY last drop of blood is drained from the meat? and I mean every last drop? 2) does the bible make a distinction between haemoglobin or myoglobin? As far as I know it just says blood, which I think makes your point mute.
@@greenleopard49 so cooked blood is no longer blood? are you transmuting it to something else, like Jesus did with the wine? All meat has blood in it and blood is cooked blood when you cook it, its not something else.
@@blacksquirrel4008 "The Torah does not "only" specify the 613 Jewish Commandments (of which the "Ten Commandments" are only a fraction). It also contains the Seven Noahide Commandments for all non-Jews, which God commanded to Noah sixteen generations earlier" (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 17).
Ishtar was holy, as were her priestesses. You could join in and become holy with them if you donated to the cult. By comparison, all this confused Israelite cruft makes very little sense without all the cannabis and frankincense smoke filling the temple/shrine. "Don't do this, don't do that, kill this bird, kill this bull" -- it all seems much less appealing than an encounter with the love goddess.
To address the questions posed in Dan's video title... The Church of the Latter-Day Saints seems to take this view: In 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Paul describes our physical bodies as being temples and temples are considered sacred. Temples should never be defiled. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. Church President Gordon B. Hinckley, built on what Paul advised the Corinthian members: Did you ever think that your body is holy? You are a child of God. Your body is His creation. Would you disfigure that creation with portrayals of people, animals, and words painted into your skin? I promise you that the time will come, if you have tattoos, that you will regret your actions.
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies." (1 Corinthians 6:19-21). Amen.
Spinning and interpretations never mix. What about the scripture saying don't wear T-shirts of idols constantly. Especially only male ones. Mix it up a bit.
It's simple: when I agree with a passage, it should be followed; when I don't like a passage, it doesn't apply anymore.
Go for it! If you're ever my Uber driver, I hope you like the one about 'do not murder.'
That's not how it works. The thing is, our bodies are the temple of the holy spirit.
Come for the education, but stay for the Fantastic Four tee shirt.
I'm here for the shirt first.
Dans Ts are a whole category on this channel. He should consider adding links for where to purchase them on each video. :)
Or vice versa. ✌️👍
And another layer on top of all of this: Christians say they believe "not one jot or tittle will be removed."
Except the part about shrimp. Mmmm, tasty shrimp.
Xtian made up a free style exegesis where Jesus fullfilled everything by himself, so it's not obligatory anymore to human beings.
It's not very fair or data-driven to place all Christians in the same generality like this one.
@@monteirolobato6830 this theological thesis of jewish law fullfilled & revoked by Jesus himself is widely accepted in xtianity.
That's why the majority of xtians don't follow jewish law, just the "New covenant".
If fringe movements have different approaches, those exceptions just confirm the general belief.
I was referring to the "not one jot or tittle will be removed." What do you mean by 'revoked'?@@marcioguerr482
Great video. Thank you. You regularly clarify things for me that bothered me for decades.
I generally divide the prohibitions in the Bible into two groups. The first group is the stuff I do, which is no longer prohibited. Then there's the stuff everybody else does, which needed continues to be prohibited, and is sinful if performed.
reasonable
Which group does hot step mom incest fall into?
I just ignore all of them, because I don't care what a bunch of dead nomads from the Iron Age thought I should or shouldn't do.
@@chameleonx9253 edgy
baarbacoa, unless you are genealogically Jewish, then the majority of the ~613 mitzvot / commandments written in the Torah (aka: the Pentateuch) were never written to, or for you in the first place.
Back in the day, the only non-Jews who were required to follow the mitzvot were goyim (aka: gentiles) in the conversion process, or those who wanted to live within the borders of the Kingdom of Israel, but not convert. In the later case, they were given a very limited set of commandments that are known today as the 'Seven Laws of Noah, or, the 7 Noachide Laws).
I've been wondering for a while where it points out the three divisions in the Hebrew Bible. So, now I know. It doesn't. It is simply cherry picking but with a fake foundation. This is why I listen to Dan. Knowledge is power.
TL;DR The prohibition on tattoos can’t be real because it’s surrounded by other prohibitions we don’t want to follow.
It's weird how some modern people cling to the text of an old collections of documents, that they also feel free to enforce or ignore at their own will. iIm all for freedom of religion and bellief but surely all of Leviticus and Deuteronomy should be applied and lived by or none of it. Where do these people obtain the authority to pick and choose?
Moses only gave the 613 commandments as an inheritance to Israel, as Deuteronomy 33:4 states: "The Torah... is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob." In Torah law, Gentiles are not allowed to keep Jewish commandments as a religious obligation.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 I appreciate your point of view but the reality is that Moses probably never existed and what is written had its origins far later.
That being said, whilst I would agree that the bible itelf does not command non-Jews to follow the laws of leviticus and Deuteronomy, Christians claim to be inheritors of the Hebrew bible and that it's purpose was to set the scene and to prophecy the coming of Jesus, their Messiah.
I do not agree, of course, but if we accpt their reasoning, by what authority do they cherry pick from the scriptures?
Is there something wrong with picking and choosing? You can’t be pro-freedom of religion/beliefs in one breath and then in the same breath say people have to interpret their religious beliefs exactly in the way that you interpret it and you don’t even believe any of it is legitimate
My thoughts exactly. This infatuation with the ancient rules, enforced randomly, is ridiculous. Why not focus on the Beatitudes (rhetorical question)?
@@NickSandt it becomes wrong when the pickers and choosers give god as the reason for imposing their selection of rules on others. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean that the religious are free to impose their manufactured hypocritical “morality” on the whole of society.
Saying that Christians, if they actually followed their holy book, should behave differently is not infringing on their freedom. It’s just a perfectly legitimate questions about the lack of consistency between the prescribed rules and their behavior.
One thing we never get is a final yes or no, just reasons for one to decide which side their on
It's rare the Bible has one stance on anything, given that it's not univocal.
@@digitaljanus Pretty sure its rather clear in the text its cuttings or tattoos for "the dead"... There is nothing said for any other purpose. The specificity would have been left out if it included all other reasons.
@@CalebAyrania you remember incorrectly. “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead *or* tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.”
“for the dead” clearly only refers to cuts on your body. Prohibition of tattoos has no qualifiers so it should be read as general.
@@pansepot1490 how does that work in hebrew? You're using specificity of an English translation
Here it is. Explain the words and how they indicate your meaning..
וְשֶׂרֶט לָנֶפֶשׁ, לֹא תִתְּנוּ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם, וּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע, לֹא תִתְּנוּ בָּכֶם: אֲנִי, יְהוָה.
As a protestant, I myself am also frustrated at how the modern western church arbitrarily picks and chooses what laws to ignore or enforce.. the church should observe all of the laws, in every era, because each law has moral and ethical weight to it.
Im curious about that prohibiton on tonsures since catholic monks were once required to have them. To be fair required might be a stretch but ibhave seen many references to tonsured christian monks/priest in hiatorical depictions
Dan briefly mentions Acts 15...This is an *enormously* important chapter everyone should read, as it gives us a rare look behind the curtain to see "how the sausages are made", and honestly, I'm amazed it made it into the book! Basically, the elders of what we call the early Church have a debate to settle a doctrinal issue; they talk about it, vote on it, and agree to a consensus, then send out a mass letter to all the churches to update them on the new status quo, the text of which Acts claims to preserve. Interestingly, the letter claims that their new position was given to them/approved by, The Holy Spirit! Now, you can reread the chapter all you want, and THS is nowhere to be found (esp funny considering this is a book where supernatural events DO occur), so this is essentially illustrating the truth of religious history in a nutshell: Men mundanely deciding what they will tell others what to do, then sealing it with the authority of "GOD told me so!"
You might look into what many Christians understand as the force/inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You might be surprised. Or maybe you would be disappointed.
@Dan I think you should consider inviting Christine Hayes on your talk show and discuss this topic. The choices made of ceremonial and moral were not entirely "arbitrary", they are directly linked to the temple worship and thus become apparently "arbitrary" since Jews no longer have a central temple and Christians no longer distinguish in the Jewish way. (also Christine is an amazing academic IMHO)
Jehovah witness use the scripture about dont defile your flesh as against tattoos. Which seems as a stretch.
2Cor 7:1
They also won't get blood transfusions for fear of it counting as eating blood. So, yeah..
My grandfather joined the Navy and tattooed his forearm in WWI. He became a pastor 5 years later and wore long-sleeved shirts for the next 60 years to hide his shame.
Could you add a link to the youtube version of the video on mixed fabrics? Thanks!
I have always understood both chapter's to be priestly instruction. I'll have to look at 19 again.
My non scholarly rebuttal to discarding old laws is that Jesus said not a letter of the law would be changed until heaven and earth were destroyed. We still have an earth. It's also fun to ask for the criteria that separates ceremonial law from moral law
My non-scholarly impression is that all of this would have been a non-issue if Jesus himself had not apparently been discarding old laws in the Gospels. A believer needs to find some explanation that allows these words and these actions to coexist. It isn't easy.
Love the shirt.
Dr. Dan - I am sincerely asking you the question as a truth seeker. What do you say is the way to eternal salvation?
Gonna start needing links for these comics tees you're wearing...
There's T Shirt makers on eBay. You type in almost anything there and there's shirts for it.
I just bought a Megaman shirt not long ago from there from a shirt maker. It's good professional quality. Thick t shirts. Not the thin ones. Not cheap though
In fact James the Just considered the Law of Moses atomic or indivisible. While I do something similar, my justifications and methods are completely different and rely on the Epistle to the Galatians (I instead refer to stuff stated _only_ in the Torah, vs. stuff restated in the New Testament, and use that as the dividing line).
This reminds me of a young (Mormon) intern we had once, she asked my thoughts once about her boyfriend getting a tattoo of praying hands - she was quite upset because of this prohibition. "What would Jesus think?" I pointed out that Jesus would probably think about the same of the tattoo as He would about having bacon with breakfast. This confused her, and I pointed out that Jesus was Jewish and would follow the dietary restrictions.
I cannot recall the rest of our conversation, but she didn't break up with him, so I am sure she managed to negotiate her understanding of the bible...
3:25 the subtitles are saying "prescription" while your mouth is saying "proscription"
I wanna know what was going on that would make anyone want to 1. Become permanently enslaved, and 2. Have a hole gouged in their ear.
If they'd gotten a family while enslaved, they'd lose the family when going free.
A significant portion of the population had a very small chance of surviving on their own. Volunteering to be a slave often guaranteed a higher quality of life than any other alternative for many.
Just a guess off the top of my head, recalling the very high mortality rate back then, one could find themselves in a situation where their family are all or mostly dead. Their family's holdings, if they ever had any to begin with, are gone. And they find themselves in debt slavery to a master who is not a total POS.
Becoming a permanent slave could be preferable to gaining your freedom after a set period only to wind up right back in debt slavery after a period where you have no shelter, food, etc.
Then, of course, there are the passages about tricking someone into slavery. So I imagine there were some underhanded scenarios one could cook up as well.
It has to do with making a family while enslaved. If you were a slave as an Israelite man, the law says you would go free in your 7th year. BUT while you were a slave you could also get married, and your wife could NOT go free when you did. If you loved her and/or you loved your master, you could volunteer to stay - and you'd be marked with a pierced ear to brand you.
Having said that, apart from the fact it's written in the biblical law, I don't think we have any evidence of any of it actually being carried out.
@stephensteviecole9238 that would be a very old ear
For what I've gathered the Bible forbids the tearing of the flesh. Which by extension forbids tattoos because it's impossible to get a tattoo without tearing the skin.
So they banned eating hemoglobin or myoglobin? Or did they just mean dont eat stuff that HAD hemoglobin not necessarily have blood while eating?
Basically it meant that you can't eat obvious blood products, like blood pudding, and that any meat had to be processed or cooked in a way that was believed to remove blood, like salting the meat. You also had to check your eggs to make sure they didn't have blood spots. These are still things that kosher-observant Jews do today.
I'm inclined to believe it refers to live animals, but my context is quite different than most readers. I've raised and slaughtered my own livestock for at least 15 years
Isnt leviticus really kind of the israelite PAstoral Epistels Laws pertaining to the levi (Priestly) class?
so tattoos are ok as long as it doesn't mark you as a slave or to devotee to another deity??
Well, almost. Tattoos are OK. Because we do not live in a time of crazy supertitions about stuff that doesn't matter. Or at least most of us don't.
All depends on how you choose to interpret the text.
I’m with the outspokenhumanist in the ‘Who gives a damn what the silly superstitious old book says’ camp.
@@boboak9168 Thank you. I would also question the idea of interpeting the text. You are right to say this is done but I have always wondered why people feel the need and presume the right to interpret what they consider to be the word of their god.
Well in the text it only says "for the dead" or "for the souls" so anything else would be permitted. (Then you have to interpret what that includes ofc)
If you’re a practicing Jew or Christian, the tattoo itself isn’t as much of an issue as the motivation for said tattoo (there are other issues involving community, but I’m on my lunch break and don’t have time lay that out).
Like eating things that had been strangled, or strangling things?
Exactly what, in context, does "eating blood" mean?
Just talking about blood in meat. There are strict rules about kosher foods including draining of all blood.
@@toniacollinske2518 Ok, that makes sense, thanks!
It seems to me that this prohibition was specifically against tattoos that symbolize seeking vengeance for slain comrades. Blood sausage is delicious.
That's a very narrow interpretation, but seems correct on some level
A tattoo leaves a permanent reminder on your body of a particular idea (or goal)
Yes it does.
How can you eat meat without it's blood?
The interpretation is one that I don't understand in detail, but there are procedures for draining the blood. Certainly there is some blood left in the tissue but that does not seem to be the issue for the Jews who insist of Kosher. Islam has dietary/sanitary standards, too.
Yes, you can drain most of the blood out. There will be traces left. Also, the reddish watery fluid that comes out of cooking beef isn't blood, it's hemoglobin. Not sure if that's a kosher distinction or not, but it's delicious 😊
People seek power. Ancient texts are a substrate upon which power can be negotiated, especially when the charms of youth fade. Speech, sex, and money are uniquely tied to power. Christ offers eternal life in the kingdom of God for the total surrender of earthly power. Or at least, Greco-Roman Christianity is making this offer. But why? Why would Jesus command the faithful to love their enemy? For what reason should the Israelites love the Amalakites? Why prohibit divorce? Why predict the destruction of the Temple?
Any chance you know who the artist is for the Thing graphic Tee?
Boomers and maybe even older Gen Xers can remember a time when good Christians thought that only disreputable sinners like sailors got tattoos. There was plenty of condemnation by Good People when tattoos started to become fashionable.
Now it seems that young televangelists need tattoos in order to appear cool.
This same guy (I’m guessing): The Bible is crystal clear; don’t have fat sex
Me: That’s written for a specific group of people and doesn’t apply to us today.
Loopholes always looking for Loopholes.
The Jerusalem Council’s opinion isn’t from Leviticus, it’s from an oral tradition about the 7 Noahide laws that bind Gentiles. The restriction on eating blood is related in Genesis 9 and both it and the prohibition on strangling are part of the animal cruelty law.
Blood from a living animal is not included in the Noahide prohibition.
Has he reacted to magnify video on ten commandments
0:36 all meat has blood in it
Not if the meat is cooked to well-done. The remaining blood will be cooked away.
Most meat sold is drained of the blood before its sold. The "blood" youre referring to is myoglobin not hemoglobin. Myoglobin is not blood.
@@willthecameraman a valid point, but also a modern medical definition that has no bearing on what the author understood ‘blood’ to be.
Also, consumer meat contains some haemoglobin too, as draining can’t remove it all. You would need to flush all the vessels extensively with another fluid to force it all out.
This is also only a technicality, since the understood requirement was to bleed the animal at slaughter time.
I think a lot of people take the New Testament command to abstain from blood too literally and read more into the author’s words than they intended.
@@willthecameraman two point 1) your saying that EVERY last drop of blood is drained from the meat? and I mean every last drop? 2) does the bible make a distinction between haemoglobin or myoglobin? As far as I know it just says blood, which I think makes your point mute.
@@greenleopard49 so cooked blood is no longer blood? are you transmuting it to something else, like Jesus did with the wine? All meat has blood in it and blood is cooked blood when you cook it, its not something else.
Got em
Seems like a lot of this now is about money
Torah commandments are divided into Jewish commandments and Noahide commandments. For Gentiles, tattoos are forbidden if one intends it for idolatry.
So sayeth thou
@@blacksquirrel4008 "The Torah does not "only" specify the 613 Jewish Commandments (of which the "Ten Commandments" are only a fraction). It also contains the Seven Noahide Commandments for all non-Jews, which God commanded to Noah sixteen generations earlier" (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 17).
Why are you here?
Ishtar was holy, as were her priestesses. You could join in and become holy with them if you donated to the cult. By comparison, all this confused Israelite cruft makes very little sense without all the cannabis and frankincense smoke filling the temple/shrine. "Don't do this, don't do that, kill this bird, kill this bull" -- it all seems much less appealing than an encounter with the love goddess.
To address the questions posed in Dan's video title...
The Church of the Latter-Day Saints seems to take this view: In 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Paul describes our physical bodies as being temples and temples are considered sacred. Temples should never be defiled.
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Church President Gordon B. Hinckley, built on what Paul advised the Corinthian members:
Did you ever think that your body is holy? You are a child of God. Your body is His creation. Would you disfigure that creation with portrayals of people, animals, and words painted into your skin? I promise you that the time will come, if you have tattoos, that you will regret your actions.
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
(1 Corinthians 6:19-21).
Amen.
Dan, I'm curious. Do you ask permission of these other creators to use their content?
Fritada de cabrito. Delicious!
Spinning and interpretations never mix. What about the scripture saying don't wear T-shirts of idols constantly. Especially only male ones. Mix it up a bit.
When you go to Leviticus to valid your point, you have made the Bible and Idol and you're telling everyone that you're Hermeneuticaly irresponsible.
The NAZIS had tattoos 😢
They also had toothpaste.
@@DeleteriousEffect Yes! 😂
OK. Thanks for that. And it's relevant because....?
@@DeleteriousEffect I heard Hitler ate bread on multiple occasions.
@@digitaljanus
He was also a vegetarian later on in life and liked dogs 🤔
Sounds like you are making good use of your education, but I can still see your lips moving as you tell us what other people told you to think.
you'd do better to critique his arguments rather than just calling him a puppet, an accusation to which you yourself are intensely vulnerable
He is just one more voice in an endless sea of confusion.@@jd35711