PDA

View Full Version : Samson & Delilah: The Perils of "Race" Mixing


june181972
08-10-2006, 07:50 PM
Judges 13:1
Again the Isrealites did evil in the eyes of the Lord, so the Lord delivered them into the hands of the Philistines for forty years.

Angel of the Lord speaking-> Judges 13:5
because you(the wife of Manoah of Zorah from the clan of the Danites) will conceive and give birth to a son. No razor may be used on his head, because the boy is to be a Nazirite(from the Hebrew word meaing "separated" or "dedicated")
set apart to God from birth, and he will begin the deliverance of Isreal from the hands of the Philistines.

Judges 13:24
The woman(the wife of Manoah) gave birth to a boy and named him
Samson(derived from a Hebrew word meaning "sun" or "brightness")
He grew and the Lord blessed him.

Judges 14:1-4
Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman.(not Delilah)
When he returned, he said to his father and mother, "I have seen a Philistine woman of Timnah; now get her for me as my wife."
His father and mother replied, "Isn't there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife? But Samson said to his father, "Get her for me. She's the right one for me."
His father and mother did not know that this was from the Lord, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Isreal.

Judges 14:15-16
On the forth day, they(the Philistine guests of the bridegroom) said to Samson's wife,(not Delilah) "Coax your husband into explaining the riddle for us, or we will burn you and your father's household to death. Did you invite us here to rob us?"
Then Samson's wife(not Delilah) threw herself on him sobbing, "You hate me! You don't really love me. You've given my people a riddle, but you haven't told me the answer."

After explaining the riddle to his wife, and she to the Philistines-> Judges 14:18
..."If you had not plowed with my heifer,(heifers do not plow, Samson feels they have totally misused his wife) you would have not solved the riddle."

Judges 14:20
And Samson's wife(not Delilah) was given to the friend who had attended him at his wedding.

Samson destroyed the grain harvest of the Philistines as revenge for the events that lead to him losing his wife.(not Delilah) The Philistines in turn burned and killed his former wife and her father's household. This leads to Samson striking down 1000 Philistines with the "jawbone of a donkey."

Judges 16:4-5
Some time later, he fell in love with a woman in the Valley of Sorek whose name was Delilah.
The rulers of the Philistines went to her and said, "See if you can lure him into showing you the secret of his great strength and how can we overpower him so we may tie him up and subdue him. Each one of us will give you 1100 shekels of silver."

Three times Delilah asked Samson where he got his great strength from. Each time he told her something other than the truth. And each time Delilah's and the Philistines' plot to subdue Samson failed because of his great power. The fourth time he told her the secret.

Judges 16:15-17
Then she said to him, "How can you say, 'I love you,' when you won't confide in me?"
...With such nagging she prodded him day after day until he was tired to death
..."No razor has ever been used on my head," he said, "because I have been a Nazirite("separated" "dedicated") set apart to God since birth. If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me, and I would become as weak as any other man."

Judges 16:19-20
Having put him to sleep on her lap, she called a man to shave off the seven braids of his hair, and so began to subdue him. And his strength had left him.
..."I'll go out as before and shake myself free." But he did not know that the Lord had left him.

New International Version

Samson's strength was not literally in his hair. He was set apart, even before his conception, to lead Isreal. The hair is a physical representation of Samson's growth and lifetime.
The Philistines and the Isrealites fought over a region roughly designated by North of Gaza and South of modern day Tel Aviv.

At no time in history have two different "races" co-existed together under mutually understood conditions. There is always some degree of struggle between the two, and adverse circumstances sustained by the group not in power. Samson being the "greatest" Isrealite of his time betrayed his people by repeatedly seeking intimacy with their open enemy and oppressors, the Philistines. The downfall of many men is the qualities of a woman essential to a man. This is what openned the door for the oppressor to attack the leader of the oppressed. The Philistines aggressively pursed the secrets of the great and powerful Isrealite because they wanted no change in the status-quo in the region. A leader will always be a target in such a situation. And a true leader leads among his own people first and foremost. His actions not only resulted in his death, but delayed his people from realizing their true potential and glory. Such will always be the case.

Aqueous Moon
08-10-2006, 08:22 PM
Good Lord...you dropped the bomb right here.

The downfall of many men is the qualities of a woman essential to a man.




See, that's what I'm talking about when I say that the Black Woman must rise up out of the bullshit. How are you gonna raise a Blackman or even "marry" a Blackman and still be the downfall of his nation? My sistas need to wake up. Cause it don't take white skin to be a white girl.

The Wizzard
08-11-2006, 02:34 AM
^lol, i hope that last part was a joke the part about "white skin to be a white girl" cause that shit is funny man. lol

Aqueous Moon
08-11-2006, 11:19 AM
some of these sistas wear stringy blonde hair with weaves and blue eye contacts. They look like white girls with black skin to me.

the silencer
08-11-2006, 01:04 PM
i love the story of Samson...some deep shit...

the end is crazy when we like rips down the columns or walls or whatever and kills like everybody in the city...more ppl than he had ever killed...

ive actually been thinking lately of getting a tattoo of the image of Samson rising up to rip down the columns he was chained to and destroy the whole city......but i wood have to get some crazy artist to depict it for me....i dono wut do yall think??

rubyspirit
08-13-2006, 12:28 PM
i love the story of Samson...some deep shit...

the end is crazy when we like rips down the columns or walls or whatever and kills like everybody in the city...more ppl than he had ever killed...
I like the story too.

ive actually been thinking lately of getting a tattoo of the image of Samson rising up to rip down the columns he was chained to and destroy the whole city......but i wood have to get some crazy artist to depict it for me....i dono wut do yall think??
Tattoos are addictive. Your flesh will crave the sensation. The Holy Bible instructs us against it.

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

the silencer
08-13-2006, 01:02 PM
peace ruby thanks for the info..

Koolish
08-14-2006, 09:13 PM
I like the story too.


Tattoos are addictive. Your flesh will crave the sensation. The Holy Bible instructs us against it.

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
word the fuck up, i've been wondering about that verse for a while.

i like the whole take on the samson story too, it put everything in a very nice perspective. samson being one of the hardest motherfuckers in the Bible, if not history, has a lot of my respect.

GhostfaceThaPharoahe
08-15-2006, 07:58 AM
droppin knowledge, thanx alot

june181972
08-15-2006, 06:15 PM
i like the whole take on the samson story too, it put everything in a very nice perspective.
droppin knowledge, thanx alot


Peace to Yall

I was trying to "drop" some wisdom, to lead to a historical understanding

KTL is b.k.a. : "where people come to beef"
We should not be surprised, if we understand history
This is how the "races" always react when sharing a designated space

Pretty Toney
08-15-2006, 06:30 PM
yeah i remember that

Gawd
08-15-2006, 06:30 PM
Good Lord...you dropped the bomb right here.






See, that's what I'm talking about when I say that the Black Woman must rise up out of the bullshit. How are you gonna raise a Blackman or even "marry" a Blackman and still be the downfall of his nation? My sistas need to wake up. Cause it don't take white skin to be a white girl.


all of the sudden you believe the text in the Bible.....thought black man was Gawd to you......

Aqueous Moon
08-17-2006, 07:06 AM
I like the story too.


Tattoos are addictive. Your flesh will crave the sensation. The Holy Bible instructs us against it.

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
That scripture is not about tattoos. When people take the bible literally like that it only gives them a shallow and erroneous interpretation.

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead..." -
Cutting your flesh for the dead is sacrificing God's truth for the devil's lies. It means that you are shedding the blood of the righteous and killing God's prophets. People who do this are like the blood suckers of the poor, whom we call the 10%. This blood they suck from the flesh of God's people is the blood of life, it is the word of God -The Truth.

(rev 19:13) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

(lev 17:11) For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

How does blood make an atonement for the soul?
It's because the blood of life is the word of God
Those who eat the blood of life are the ones who love trick knowledge in place of truth - the blood suckers.

(duet 12:23-24) Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh. Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water.

(rev 16:2) And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

The mark is not a tattoo it's the same mark of the beast in revelations...

(Rev 14.9) - And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,...

Having the mark of the beast in your forehead means that you think by the trick knowledge of the devil....having the mark of the beast in your hand means that you have the devil's ways and actions. When we pour the blood of life unto the earth we are teaching who the true and living God is. This truth is what is burning those who have the mark of the beast, not tattoos.

Kephrem
08-17-2006, 12:23 PM
Don't listen to this person here, she obviously has set herself up as a private interpreter of the Bible. The verse in question has everything to do with tatoos and tribal marks (as was custom in the ancient world and forbidden to Israelites) and has nothing at all to do with "the mark of the beast".

Aqueous Moon
08-17-2006, 12:27 PM
We are not in the ancient world anymore...time to catch up to what's happening right now.

Kephrem
08-17-2006, 01:04 PM
And no one said we're in the ancient world, the subject was a specific LAW, which, as laws of God, were set up as being Eternal.

Mattew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


We are not in the ancient world anymore...time to catch up to what's happening right now.

...but, by all means, tell us what we all should be "catching up to" now. I assume you meant to disfiguring ones flesh and other popular abominations, yes??

Aqueous Moon
08-17-2006, 01:21 PM
And no one said we're in the ancient world, the subject was a specific LAW, which, as laws of God, were set up as being Eternal.

Mattew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


...but, by all means, tell us what we all should be "catching up to" now. I assume you meant to disfiguring ones flesh and other popular abominations, yes??
What we need to be catching up to is literacy. Some of us still don't know how to properly read, analyze, and comprehend literature.

There is nothing eternal about a law that says don't get a tattoo. That's just a shallow misinterpretation of ancient wisdom.

Personally, I wouldn't care how many tattoos my brotha or sista has, as long as they recognize the true and living, and teach this truth to our people.

I don't intend to let wisdom turn to dust by the illiteracy of simple minded readers. The way to fulfill the law is to first understand it and then apply it.

Kephrem
08-17-2006, 02:49 PM
What we need to be catching up to is literacy. Some of us still don't know how to properly read, analyze, and comprehend literature.

I don't disagree with this, but I fail to see what it has to do with what we're discussing. The law that was mentioned was very specific and needn't any further 'decoding'.

There is nothing eternal about a law that says don't get a tattoo.

I was speaking of the totality of the law ( which Leviticus 19:28 is a part of), that the Bible and indeed the scripture I last quoted are stated as being perpetual.

That's just a shallow misinterpretation of ancient wisdom.

The law of God as is written in the Bible is an everlasting law, there is no "misinterpretation" of it and its unmoveable fundamental nature.

Psalm 119:44 So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever.

If I recall correctly YOU yourself once quoted Biblical law on this forum, or have you since changed your stance on its universality?

Personally, I wouldn't care how many tattoos my brotha or sista has, as long as they recognize the true and living, and teach this truth to our people.

The truth is to keep and teach Gods law.

Psalm 119:142 Thy righteousness [is] an everlasting righteousness, and thy law [is] the truth.

And you don't have to "care" about those who do have them but what's being taught to the babies and to those who don't have them is another thing entirely.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.



I don't intend to let wisdom turn to dust by the illiteracy of simple minded readers.

What "wisdom" do you profess to have of the previously mentioned scriptures sista? Your attempt to link up the "mark of the beast" with the law against tatoos was erroneous, and frankly speaking you're playing with fire twisting the word of God. ( Jer. 23:29 )

And in case you didn't know there was NO "mark of the beast" when the Hebrews were writing the Torah (in B.C. times), as that's talking about the Romans in Revelation (in A.D. times).


The way to fulfill the law is to first understand it and then apply it.

That is correct.


Peace and Blessings.

Aqueous Moon
08-17-2006, 05:33 PM
I don't disagree with this, but I fail to see what it has to do with what we're discussing. The law that was mentioned was very specific and needn't any further 'decoding'.
That's a lazy and illiterate statement right there. I don't know where you come up with this 'decoding'. I said nothing about that. What I did say was that the scripture needed to be analyzed in order to be properly understood and applied.

I was speaking of the totality of the law ( which Leviticus 19:28 is a part of), that the Bible and indeed the scripture I last quoted are stated as being perpetual.
The law of God is perpetual, but as we can easily see from our present state of malfunction as a people, the law of God has not been properly understood and consequently, it has not been applied.

The law of God as is written in the Bible is an everlasting law, there is no "misinterpretation" of it and its unmoveable fundamental nature.
The law of God as it is written in the bible is a mangled, mutilated, maze of truth mixed with falsehood, courtesy of King James. The very purpose of the bible was to serve the King of England in the form of political propaganda and you are terribly mistaken to think otherwise. Especially, as it is the King James version that we are referencing....

"James' interest in literature was tied in with a shrewd sense of propaganda. He realized that books, masques, sermons, and plays could all be employed in the service of the king, that they were the media which could best disseminate his views on kingship and could impress upon a large number of people it's power and majesty."
http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/james/jamesbio.htm


Psalm 119:44 So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever.
Be careful here, or else you may end up keeping the law of the devil forever. That's the way trick knowledge works. It tricks people into thinking it's truth.

If I recall correctly YOU yourself once quoted Biblical law on this forum, or have you since changed your stance on its universality?
Biblical law is only universal if it's truthfull. So, I always interpret the bible through the filter of reason and logic and fact.

The truth is to keep and teach Gods law.
The truth is God's law....keeping it and teaching it is the duty of the righteous.

Psalm 119:142 Thy righteousness an everlasting righteousness, and thy law the truth.
Yes, and tattoos has no bearing at all on the righteousness of the person who wear them.

And you don't have to "care" about those who do have them but what's being taught to the babies and to those who don't have them is another thing entirely.
Don't twist my words. I did not say that I didn't care about those who have tattoos. I said that I don't care how many tattoos a righteous person has because what matters to me is their ability to teach the truth to our people.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
What are you implying with this? Are you saying that a tattoo means that a person is the least in the 'kingdom of heaven'?? I hope not. Like I said before that would be incredibly shallow not to mention, silly.

What "wisdom" do you profess to have of the previously mentioned scriptures sista? Your attempt to link up the "mark of the beast" with the law against tatoos was erroneous, and frankly speaking you're playing with fire twisting the word of God. ( Jer. 23:29 )
You haven't said or even quoted anything to prove me erroneous. I am here interpreting scripture and you are harping about the perpetuality of King James' twised truths, while calling them "God's law". What blasphemy! You can not even attempt to demon - strate your mis-understandings. I've staightened the lies of the demon in order to reveal the truth, and you have yet to come close...
(2 Timothy 2:15) - remember?

And in case you didn't know there was NO "mark of the beast" when the Hebrews were writing the Torah (in B.C. times), as that's talking about the Romans in Revelation (in A.D. times).
That's quite presumptious of you. But, what should I expect from a Jew?
[I](Exodus 17.4): And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me.

Of course, if you are not a Jew then your referencing the Torah here is a misrepresentation of the old testament, and it is not in the context of this discussion, it is but a mere jew stumbling stone. And if you are a Jew then you should understand that God's law - including what he says about those with the "mark of the beast" is perpetual....No beginning nor ending, right?
[I](Titus 14.13): This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Ha...the books of Moses? Maybe you are referencing the wrong children of Isreal?...In case you didn't know, Moses wasn't sent his books to raise my people up out of the caves with them no, my people were not the cavemen or the snakes of the ancient wilderness....
(John 3.14): And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: - - - that means catch up to what's happening today.
Peace and Blessings.
Peace and Blessings unto you.

Kephrem
08-17-2006, 07:43 PM
That's a lazy and illiterate statement right there.

No, it isn't. Leviticus 19:28 didn't need any elaborate breakdown as you attempted to give it, claiming it's not about tatoos and bodily engravings and about the "mark of the beast".

Not everything in the Bible is a code or a parable is what I meant there.


I don't know where you come up with this 'decoding'. I said nothing about that.

I didn't say you said that. I was refering to your strained breakdown of the verse in question.


What I did say was that the scripture needed to be analyzed in order to be properly understood and applied.

Analyzed in what sense? According to NGE thinking? The understanding of the verse is clear, it was a law to the Israealites to not print up their bodies with marks, or make any cuttings on it, and then apply it as a nationalistic law

Are you too proud to admit you are wrong in this instance?

The law of God is perpetual,

Right, but you made comments in you last post that this law in particular isn't.

but as we can easily see from our present state of malfunction as a people, the law of God has not been properly understood and consequently, it has not been applied.

That is correct, that's why Rubyspirit and I brought it up to bring it to the light here.

The law of God as it is written in the bible is a mangled, mutilated, maze of truth mixed with falsehood,

And that is your misinformed opinion. The same opinion is certainly truth when it comes to your leaderless vagabond organization.

courtesy of King James.

You know nothing of King James. But only that propaganda which Victorian era Illuminati families promulgated to defame the Bible`s purity, and strip the world of hope and righteousness, leaving the world open to accept their new doctrine of the devil.

The very purpose of the bible was to serve the King of England in the form of political propaganda

Assertion. The Bible is the record of the Hebrew Israelites from the ancient world.


and you are terribly mistaken to think otherwise.

And you're terribly mistaken to teach their is no God other then physical man, and teach falsehoods on the Bible.


Especially, as it is the King James version that we are referencing....


And? Are you now an expert on translations as you think you are interpreting scripture?


Quote:
"James' interest in literature was tied in with a shrewd sense of propaganda. He realized that books, masques, sermons, and plays could all be employed in the service of the king, that they were the media which could best disseminate his views on kingship and could impress upon a large number of people it's power and majesty."
http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/james/jamesbio.htm

He wrote books himself, and had interest in court pomp, and there's nothing wrong with that. You have no point here.


Psalm 119:44 So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever.

Be careful here, or else you may end up keeping the law of the devil forever.

The devil has no divine laws, which laws King David was obviously refering to.

That's the way trick knowledge works. It tricks people into thinking it's truth.

True. Perhaps then you should reevalute your thinking and the so-called "lessons".


If I recall correctly YOU yourself once quoted Biblical law on this forum, or have you since changed your stance on its universality? -- Kephrem

Biblical law is only universal if it's truthfull.

You might have mistaken my use of the word. Regardless if non Israelites followed the laws, universality also defines a particular group, especially those who subscribed it among themselves.

So, I always interpret the bible through the filter of reason and logic and fact.

So your whole position then is in defense of tatooing and the like, is this correct? Please give us the logic and reasoning for such behaviour among the civilized.


The truth is to keep and teach Gods law. -- Kephrem

The truth is God's law....keeping it and teaching it is the duty of the righteous.

Please save the semantics for one of these other kids on here. Gods law must be truth if one is to keep and teach it, which are actions of the truth.

Psalm 119:142 Thy righteousness [is] an everlasting righteousness, and thy law [is] the truth. -- Kephrem

Yes, and tattoos has no bearing at all on the righteousness of the person who wear them.

I obviously didn't quote the scripture to speak generally against tattoos, or that by having them one can't be righteous, but I was replying to something you specifically said:

Personally, I wouldn't care how many tattoos my brotha or sista has, as long as they recognize the true and living, and teach this truth to our people. -- Moon

...because its stating clearly that the law is the truth, of which Leviticus 19:28 is a part of. Do you understand?


Don't twist my words. I did not say that I didn't care about those who have tattoos.

And I didn't suggest that you don't care about them personally, I obviously was going by what you said about not caring if they have tattoos..

I said that I don't care how many tattoos a righteous person has

Right, and I understood that, so when I used the word "care" there I was going by what you said and not "twisting your words" or making up another arguement at all.

because what matters to me is their ability to teach the truth to our people.

What matters is teaching truth, Gods law is truth, if they teach it doesn't matter if one gets a tattoo then they are not teaching truth at all but vain opinion.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are commandments that are greater then others, yet if one teaches Gods people it's ok to break the least of them and that it's ok, then those who do and teach that will be considered the least in Gods kingdom.

What are you implying with this?

I'm not implying anything. It was part of my last comments. See above.

Are you saying that a tattoo means that a person is the least in the 'kingdom of heaven'??

No, see above.

You haven't said or even quoted anything to prove me erroneous.

...in case you didn't know there was NO "mark of the beast" when the Hebrews were writing the Torah (in B.C. times), as that's talking about the Romans in Revelation (in A.D. times). -- Kephrem


I am here interpreting scripture and you are harping about the perpetuality of King James' twised truths

If they are "twisted truths" why then are you interpreting them at all? Or are your private interpretations that which makes them "plain truth"??

while calling them "God's law".

They are Gods law as held by the ancient Hebrews, or do you challenge this to be the case?

What blasphemy!

Come again? Please show us how defending that the Bible states God forbids his people having tattoos and has laws against them is considered "blasphemy".


You can not even attempt to demon - strate your mis-understandings.

What more can I possibly say to show how you have erred by saying Leviticus 19:28 is not about tattoos and about the "mark of the beast", frankly it's an open and shut case that needn't any further deliberation.


I've staightened the lies of the demon in order to reveal the truth, and you have yet to come close...

Of course you can assert that you have done this all you want, whether it's the truth or not will be left for more rational minds to decide.


(2 Timothy 2:15) - remember?

Yes I do. But some it seems are beyond that edification, and need more prompt chastisment for their missayings.

And in case you didn't know there was NO "mark of the beast" when the Hebrews were writing the Torah (in B.C. times), as that's talking about the Romans in Revelation (in A.D. times). -- Kephrem

That's quite presumptious of you. But, what should I expect from a Jew?


Are you implying the law in Leviticus 19:28 and the writing of Revelation were contemporary writings? If so what is your source for this claim??

And I fail to see what being a Jew has to do with this matter, which is a matter of history, and not at all with a tribal name.


(Exodus 17.4): And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me.


Right, because they were disobedient and stiffnecked and alot had their minds still in KEMET. So the question now becomes Ms. Moon will YOU be quick to use this verse in the future, knowing now how it's intrinsically connected with the anti-Egyptian stance of its Hebrew scribe ( Exodus 17:3 )?


Of course, if you are not a Jew then your referencing the Torah here is a misrepresentation of the old testament,

Leviticus 19:28 is in the Torah. And yes, I'm a Jew.

and it is not in the context of this discussion,

The context of the discussion became one aboutt tattoos, the law on it as posted by rubyspirit is in the Torah.

it is but a mere jew stumbling stone.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, and I'm quite confident you don't either.


And if you are a Jew then you should understand that God's law - including what he says about those with the "mark of the beast" is perpetual....No beginning nor ending, right?

No one was talking about the "mark of the beast" in Revelation. YOU brought that up trying to link two totally unrelated subjects. Just admit to yourself your mistake and move on.


(Titus 14.13): This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

You have quite the habit of bringing up totally unrelated scriptures into the discussion. "Jewish fables" has NOTHING to do with the law against tatoos found in the law in the TORAH, or even with the "mark of the beast" which scripture was written by a CHRISTIAN Jew. (St. John the Divine)


Ha...the books of Moses? Maybe you are referencing the wrong children of Isreal?...In case you didn't know, Moses wasn't sent his books to raise my people up out of the caves with them no, my people were not the cavemen or the snakes of the ancient wilderness....

In case people don't know what Ms. Moon is talking about, she's refering back to her Nation of Gods teachings which assert that Moses was teaching white cavemen in the Caucasus Mountains, and not the the children of Israel in the Sinai!

Of course this is something they can really only teach here in the freedom of North America under Satans authority, because if they ever go out East then they would have to deal with Muslim Asiatics (and some original Christians) that would take their head off with a sword for teaching such wicked lies.


(John 3.14): And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: - - - that means catch up to what's happening today.

Actually it doesn't mean that at all --Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?


As for "catching up to what's happening today" -- Ecclesiastes 1 vs. 9 The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun.


Peace and Blessings

Aqueous Moon
08-17-2006, 09:59 PM
^^^ that's waayyy too many details, I'll try to respond to some of it.

JASPER
08-17-2006, 10:29 PM
Stop the white on white hatecrimes!

froth
08-18-2006, 12:24 AM
mad knowledge jasper

Aqueous Moon
08-18-2006, 04:01 AM
No, it isn't. Leviticus 19:28 didn't need any elaborate breakdown as you attempted to give it, claiming it's not about tatoos and bodily engravings and about the "mark of the beast".
You don't have the authority to restrict any scripture to basic, face value, simple minded, jargon. I However, reserve my right to breakdown and examine any supposed word of God.

Analyzed in what sense? According to NGE thinking? The understanding of the verse is clear, it was a law to the Israealites to not print up their bodies with marks, or make any cuttings on it, and then apply it as a nationalistic law
I analyzed it according to my own perspective. Anyway, don't you Jews like to cut the flesh of newborn babies by circumcision? Looks like Moses would be turning over in his grave if he could you see you now.

Right, but you made comments in you last post that this law in particular isn't.
No, I said your shallow interpretation of that law is not eternal.

Assertion. The Bible is the record of the Hebrew Israelites from the ancient world.
Says who?....King James of England?

He wrote books himself, and had interest in court pomp, and there's nothing wrong with that. You have no point here.
There's nothing wrong with spreading European propaganda throughout the word of God?? wtf?

So your whole position then is in defense of tatooing and the like, is this correct? Please give us the logic and reasoning for such behaviour among the civilized.
I am not concerned with tattoos. Niether is the true and living. We are in the middle of the last days. This is Armegeddon, I have important truths to learn and teach.

I obviously didn't quote the scripture to speak generally against tattoos, or that by having them one can't be righteous, but I was replying to something you specifically said:
Personally, I wouldn't care how many tattoos my brotha or sista has, as long as they recognize the true and living, and teach this truth to our people. -- Moon
...because its stating clearly that the law is the truth, of which Leviticus 19:28 is a part of. Do you understand?
I've already explained that I don't see that scripture the same way you do. In fact, I consider your understanding of that scripture as worthless and irrelevent to the reality of truth. So, no...it doesn't move me.

What matters is teaching truth, Gods law is truth, if they teach it doesn't matter if one gets a tattoo then they are not teaching truth at all but vain opinion.
That is an utterly ridiculous and vain opinion of yours right there.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are commandments that are greater then others, yet if one teaches Gods people it's ok to break the least of them and that it's ok, then those who do and teach that will be considered the least in Gods kingdom.
None of that has to do with tattoos.

Revelation 19:16 - And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
^Would you consider this to be a tattoo?...he is the one who sat upon the white horse and smited the nations with the sword of his tounge. He was Faithful and True.

If they are "twisted truths" why then are you interpreting them at all? Or are your private interpretations that which makes them "plain truth"??
Because I like to build. Like minds build by interpreting their understandings of everything in the universe. And we also destroy misunderstandings.

They are Gods law as held by the ancient Hebrews, or do you challenge this to be the case?
I challenge your understanding of God's law as it is presented in the Bible. I have only seen you regurgitate the laws of King James with no depth or reflection put forth.

Come again? Please show us how defending that the Bible states God forbids his people having tattoos and has laws against them is considered "blasphemy".
I was referring to your simple ramblings of King James' translation of scripture and your proclaiming them to be God's law.

Are you implying the law in Leviticus 19:28 and the writing of Revelation were contemporary writings? If so what is your source for this claim??
I am saying that they both have contemporary meaning, and that they are related.

And I fail to see what being a Jew has to do with this matter, which is a matter of history, and not at all with a tribal name.
Are you implying that the word "jew" is a contemporary utterance?

Right, because they were disobedient and stiffnecked and alot had their minds still in KEMET. So the question now becomes Ms. Moon will YOU be quick to use this verse in the future, knowing now how it's intrinsically connected with the anti-Egyptian stance of its Hebrew scribe ( Exodus 17:3 )?
You still have your head in Kemet. Again....we are not in the ancient world, and everytime I quote a scripture it will not always be in reference to an ancient time, or an ancient people.

Leviticus 19:28 is in the Torah. And yes, I'm a Jew.
The context of the discussion became one aboutt tattoos, the law on it as posted by rubyspirit is in the Torah.
I have no idea what you're talking about here, and I'm quite confident you don't either.
No, I have no idea why you decided to single out the Torah, other then that you are a "Jew" and since that is your desire then so be it.

No one was talking about the "mark of the beast" in Revelation. YOU brought that up trying to link two totally unrelated subjects. Just admit to yourself your mistake and move on.
Of course I was talking about it. You are the one who is questioning my interpretation...so, no I made no mistake there. And I am certainly not convinced that I have by your poor wit and petty insults.

You have quite the habit of bringing up totally unrelated scriptures into the discussion. "Jewish fables" has NOTHING to do with the law against tatoos found in the law in the TORAH, or even with the "mark of the beast" which scripture was written by a CHRISTIAN Jew. (St. John the Divine)
Your shallow condemnation of tattoos and people with tattoos is the silly Jewish fable in reference. You have a hard time following context. You keep backsliding.

In case people don't know what Ms. Moon is talking about, she's refering back to her Nation of Gods teachings which assert that Moses was teaching white cavemen in the Caucasus Mountains, and not the the children of Israel in the Sinai!

Of course this is something they can really only teach here in the freedom of North America under Satans authority, because if they ever go out East then they would have to deal with Muslim Asiatics (and some original Christians) that would take their head off with a sword for teaching such wicked lies.
And yet you babble on about tattoo's and King James' version of the "law of God".
Peace and Blessings
Peace

Kephrem
08-18-2006, 03:34 PM
You don't have the authority to restrict any scripture to basic, face value, simple minded, jargon.

I actually do have the authority to point out that some scriptures, especially clear cut laws, are not some sort of mystery as you have painted Leviticus 19:28 to be, that, we should suppose, are only to be deciphered by the likes of yourself.

I However, reserve my right to breakdown and examine any supposed word of God.

And as an astute observer I also reserve the right to likewise counter your Five Percent rhetoric.

I analyzed it according to my own perspective.

Right, yours and yours only.


Anyway, don't you Jews like to cut the flesh of newborn babies by circumcision?

Yes, to my knowledge many ancient people did, and your point here is what exactly? Is your arguement now that circumcision is the same as tattoos?

Looks like Moses would be turning over in his grave if he could you see you now.

Moses is not in a grave. But best believe that your "Father Allah" is in Hell.

No, I said your shallow interpretation of that law is not eternal.

Shallow? in what sense? By reading the law in Leviticus 19:28, understanding what it says, then relaying it back into the discussion it's a shallow interpretation?


Assertion. The Bible is the record of the Hebrew Israelites from the ancient world. -- Kephrem

Says who?....King James of England?

Interesting. This statement says ALOT about the level you're at in your studies. No, King James doesn't say that, the records of the ancient Christians and the Hebrew writings from a thousand years before him do.

There's nothing wrong with spreading European propaganda throughout the word of God?? wtf?

STRAW MAN.

Show us WHERE in the quote you provided it mentions the "word of God" or the Bible.


I am not concerned with tattoos. Niether is the true and living.

Ok, so please tell us your reasoning then for outright dismissing Leviticus 19:28 to be about tattoos in favor of your elaborate "mark of the beast" breakdown.


I've already explained that I don't see that scripture the same way you do.

Obviously, and your bizarre personal interpretation is what got you called out on it.


In fact, I consider your understanding of that scripture as worthless and irrelevent

People have known the scripture to be refering to tattoos before I was even born, so no, it's not "my" own understanding.

Your hardheadness and refusal to see the verse clearly doesn't make your little breakdown there any more true.


to the reality of truth. So, no...it doesn't move me.

Personal interpretations don't impress rational minds.

What matters is teaching truth, Gods law is truth, if they teach it doesn't matter if one gets a tattoo then they are not teaching truth at all but vain opinion.-- Kephrem

That is an utterly ridiculous and vain opinion of yours right there.

Now you're just throwing out empty statements. Since we're dealing with what the Bible says, if one of your Five Percent brethren attempts to breakdown the Bible (which you are known to do, or rather try) in the name of "truth" and the issue of tats comes up and they say it's alright to get them then what I've said is right and exact.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are commandments that are greater then others, yet if one teaches Gods people it's ok to break the least of them and that it's ok, then those who do and teach that will be considered the least in Gods kingdom. -- Kephrem

None of that has to do with tattoos. -- Moon

It obviously has to do with the Bibles LAWS, which prohibits such a thing (the subject of this discussion), and about those who profess to teach the scriptures.

Revelation 19:16 - And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
^Would you consider this to be a tattoo?...he is the one who sat upon the white horse and smited the nations with the sword of his tounge. He was Faithful and True.

The laws of the Bible say NOT to get a tattoo, so why would I consider that to be refering to one?? You do know what a vesture is right? It's a GARMENT (worn down to the foot like in the Middle East) that COVERS UP the THIGH as well. Writing can be SEWN on clothes.

If they are "twisted truths" why then are you interpreting them at all? Or are your private interpretations that which makes them "plain truth"?? -- Kephrem

Because I like to build. Like minds build by interpreting their understandings of everything in the universe. And we also destroy misunderstandings.


Outright dismissing what's written in plain english in Leviticus 19:28 is not "building" at all, it's destroying, yourself, and those out here who want to hear/learn the Law of God.

They are Gods law as held by the ancient Hebrews, or do you challenge this to be the case? -- Kephrem

I challenge your understanding of God's law as it is presented in the Bible.

Thou shalt not murder, means to not kill unjustified. Can you challenge this?

I have only seen you regurgitate the laws of King James with no depth or reflection put forth.

Present your FACTS showing these are the "laws of King James".

SHOW and PROVE.


Come again? Please show us how defending that the Bible states God forbids his people having tattoos and has laws against them is considered "blasphemy". -- Kephrem

I was referring to your simple ramblings of King James' translation of scripture

Did you or did you not use King James translation of scripture to put forth your interpretation that Leviticus 19:28 is really about the "mark of the beast"? Are you serious??

Anyway, the translation in question is the BEST one, it was translated by scholars from the original writings, from the HEBREW, to the vernacular of the day which was ENGLISH.



and your proclaiming them to be God's law.


They existed way before King James. But since you are boldly proclaiming them to be the invention of a 17th century British king, SHOW and PROVE this to have been the case.

Are you implying the law in Leviticus 19:28 and the writing of Revelation were contemporary writings? If so what is your source for this claim?? -- Kephrem

I am saying that they both have contemporary meaning, and that they are related. -- Moon

Are these your own thoughts, or have you heard, or possibly read this somewhere else?

And I fail to see what being a Jew has to do with this matter, which is a matter of history, and not at all with a tribal name. -- Kephrem

Are you implying that the word "jew" is a contemporary utterance?

No, I'm not implying that at all, I questioned why you would say this:

That's quite presumptious of you. But, what should I expect from a Jew? -- Moon

This you said after I pointed out how the law of Leviticus 19:28 and the "mark of the beast" scripture (which YOU attempted to link up) are actually several centuries apart, and in context are totally unrelated, one being a law against tattoos, and other being a future prophecy which I've discussed on KTL not too long ago.

And in case you didn't know there was NO "mark of the beast" when the Hebrews were writing the Torah (in B.C. times), as that's talking about the Romans in Revelation (in A.D. times). -- Kephrem


You still have your head in Kemet.

?


Again....we are not in the ancient world,

And again I know this, but since YOU know this why do YOU discuss these topics that pertain to it??

and everytime I quote a scripture it will not always be in reference to an ancient time, or an ancient people.

Ok, but that doesn't mean that it's not about that, what goes on inside Aquenous Moons head with its private interpretations is not by any means the end all of the matter.

No, I have no idea why you decided to single out the Torah, other then that you are a "Jew" and since that is your desire then so be it.

What?

I brought up the Torah because Leviticus 19:28 is found within it....


Your shallow condemnation of tattoos

I didn't condemn tattoos the Law in the Torah did.

and people with tattoos is the silly Jewish fable in reference.

LMAO..

The Jewish fables have NOTHING to do with law, in fact the person who upbraided the Jews about "fables" kept the law himself.

You have a hard time following context. You keep backsliding.

Yeah sure, and you have a hard time not perverting scripture to your own condemnation.

And yet you babble on about tattoo's and King James' version of the "law of God".

Actually I don't "babble" about tattoos, I simply interjected when you tried to put out false information about the law that clearly forbad it.


Peace and Blessings

MsRzaRecTaH
08-18-2006, 06:54 PM
I would put my 2 cents in this discussion but I rather not.

Kephrem
08-18-2006, 07:39 PM
That's wise of you MissReesa, because "2 cents" isn't worth dung where the knowledge of the Bible is being put forth. Proverbs 13:3

Shalam

MsRzaRecTaH
08-18-2006, 07:45 PM
I understand everyone is entitled to their own opinion but many are not understanding the real truth. Thats why I dont post here no more. And then people come in the threads and choose to be ignorant about the discussion.
KTL is not like what it used to be like. peace

Aqua Luna
08-18-2006, 07:52 PM
Originally Posted by Kephrem
Actually I don't "babble" about tattoos, I simply interjected when you tried to put out false information about the law that clearly forbad it.
I'll be moving on a bit now...
2 Corinthians 13:11 - Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

Psalms 37:37 - Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace.
This says put a mark upon the perfect man. If we are to be perfect, then we will be marked. According to you, to be marked is to be tattooed and be the least in the Kingdom of heaven. You are confused because you don't understand Leviticus 19:28.

Ezekiel 9:4 - And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

Ezekiel 9:6 - Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
So, here we can see that the Lord has a mark. And that mark is placed upon the forehead. And to those who have the Lord's mark, they will not be slain. Because they have the thoughts, ways, and actions of God himself, his mark is in their foreheads.

Galatians 6:17 - From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

And yet, you babble on about tattoos as marks.
Are you speaking of only the tattoos printed on account of the dead, as written in Leviticus?
What about tattoos dedicated to the living?
I have shown above that the Lord's mark means life, otherwise you would be of the slain - that would be those who are dead to the word of God, the mentally dead.

(Lev 19:28) Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Now, you insist on misunderstanding this verse by not properly analyzing the first part which is about cutting flesh - for the dead....what you don't understand is that the second part of this verse is also about printing marks - for the dead.

The righteous are not to make any cuttings or marks upon them because they are the flesh of God and his word is the blood of life. To cut the flesh of God or mark it for the dead would be to tamper with and dilute the way and the word of God. That would be turning knowledge into trick knowledge. And that's how the 10% sucks the blood of the poor. This is what is prohibited to God's people, nothing about tattoos.

Revelation 19:20 - And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Here we can see that the ones who were decieved were the ones who had the mark of the beast. They were fooled by the trick knowledge of the false prophet who was working for the beast. They had the thoughts, ways and actions of the beast. That is the mark of the dead and for the dead and that's why I recognized it in Leviticus.

Peace

Aqua Luna
08-18-2006, 07:56 PM
That's wise of you MissReesa, because "2 cents" isn't worth dung where the knowledge of the Bible is being put forth. Proverbs 13:3

Shalam

That's just rude.

Kephrem
08-18-2006, 10:31 PM
That's just rude.

Perhaps.

2Cr 11:6 But though [I be] rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things.

Aqua Luna
08-18-2006, 10:55 PM
It is better to be humble.
Proverbs 6:3 - Do this now, my son, and deliver thyself, when thou art come into the hand of thy friend; go, humble thyself, and make sure thy friend.

MsRzaRecTaH
08-18-2006, 10:58 PM
Peace

Kephrem
08-18-2006, 11:21 PM
I'll be moving on a bit now...

Why's that? Didn't you say you were not moved a post or two back?

2 Corinthians 13:11 - Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

Psalms 37:37 - Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace.

This says put a mark upon the perfect man.

You're grasping at straws here.

Marking the perfect man doesn't have anything to do with any physical mark.

If we are to be perfect, then we will be marked.

Smh, See above.


According to you, to be marked is to be tattooed and be the least in the Kingdom of heaven.

According to common sense Leviticus 19:28 is talking about what we call in modern times "tattoos" and other physical markings. And I NEVER said those who have them would be least in the kingdom of heaven, I said those who teach that there's nothing wrong with breaking the least commandents would be. Straw Man.

You are confused because you don't understand Leviticus 19:28.

Last time I checked there was another person in this thread who understood what it meant, as do many others. Only you and perhaps some New Age so-called Christians would probably agree that it was about the "Mark of the Beast".


So, here we can see that the Lord has a mark. And that mark is placed upon the forehead.

But what is your arguement here? is it that the chosen of God would get a tat on their domepiece to show to the prophets they are righteous? LOL

And to those who have the Lord's mark, they will not be slain. Because they have the thoughts, ways, and actions of God himself, his mark is in their foreheads.

That's right, I'm quite impreseed. Now tell us what exactly this has to do with the strict law FORBIDDING cuttings in the flesh and printing marks on the body.


And yet, you babble on about tattoos as marks.

Saint Paul didn't have tattoos or purposely cut or print marks upon himself. That's talking about him going through his own tribulation like Christ did on the Cross. You would understand that if you read the 14th verse.

Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Paul bearing the same marks is alluding to the CROSS.

Are you speaking of only the tattoos printed on account of the dead, as written in Leviticus? What about tattoos dedicated to the living?

The scripture says not to do cuttings for the dead, NOR print any marks on oneself, it's very clear in that it's forbidden to the Israelites in allinstances.

smh @ "tattoos for the living"... madness


I have shown above that the Lord's mark means life, otherwise you would be of the slain - that would be those who are dead to the word of God, the mentally dead.

I ain't buying what you selling..how 'bout that?

Now, you insist on misunderstanding this verse by not properly analyzing the first part which is about cutting flesh - for the dead...

Who said I didn't understand that? I understand it perfectly.


what you don't understand is that the second part of this verse is also about printing marks - for the dead.

What I understand is that this law in verse 28 is found within the midst of a variety of laws that God gave to Israel (throughout the chapter). It doesn't say it's ok to print marks for the living thus your point here in null and void. The custom was one practiced by non Israelites thus it was/is a sin to them/us, whether for the dead, or for the living.

72. Not to tattoo the skin Lev. 19:28

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_mitzvot#Maimonides.27_list


The righteous are not to make any cuttings or marks upon them because they are the flesh of God and his word is the blood of life. To cut the flesh of God or mark it for the dead would be to tamper with and dilute the way and the word of God. That would be turning knowledge into trick knowledge. And that's how the 10% sucks the blood of the poor. This is what is prohibited to God's people, nothing about tattoos.

See above.


Here we can see that the ones who were decieved were the ones who had the mark of the beast. They were fooled by the trick knowledge of the false prophet who was working for the beast. They had the thoughts, ways and actions of the beast. That is the mark of the dead and for the dead and that's why I recognized it in Leviticus.

Leviticus is laws from the ancient world to Israel (that are still in effect) so that they don't follow the ways of the other nations. The "mark of the beast" many centuries later had/has to do with Rome and her philosephy down to America, which is the new Rome.


Peace

Kephrem
08-18-2006, 11:40 PM
It is better to be humble.
Proverbs 6:3 - Do this now, my son, and deliver thyself, when thou art come into the hand of thy friend; go, humble thyself, and make sure thy friend.

Listen you swine the person said she had something to say but chooses not to, now she couldn't POSSIBLY have been talking about ANYTHING to counter what I've been saying because I've been saying what the BIBLE is saying, or, if she agreed with the Bible then it was her DUTY as a believer in the Word of God to back up her brethren, thus it was wise that she remained silent on the matter because if she sided with your madness she would've gotten cut just as well. Now you said I came out rude to her, well the scripture says the disciples were also RUDE in speech at times but NOT in knowledge, because obviously they had people like you back then who needed to be spoken to harshly. The scriptures don't say to be 'humble' to those who only oppose themselves when it comes to the Word of God, it says to upbraid and openly rebuke them.

SHALAM

Aqua Luna
08-19-2006, 12:02 AM
Listen you swine the person said she had something to say but chooses not to, now she couldn't POSSIBLY have been talking about ANYTHING to counter what I've been saying because I've been saying what the BIBLE is saying, or, if she agreed with the Bible then it was her DUTY as a believer in the Word of God to back up her brethren, thus it was wise that she remained silent on the matter because if she sided with your madness she would've gotten cut just as well. Now you said I came out rude to her, well the scripture says the disciples were also RUDE in speech at times but NOT in knowledge, because obviously they had people like you back then who needed to be spoken to harshly. The scriptures don't say to be 'humble' to those who only oppose themselves when it comes to the Word of God, it says to upbraid and openly rebuke them.

SHALAM

Bullshit! You don't what she would have said. She could have enlighten you, you old fool.

Proverbs 7:22 - He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks;

But, instead of being humble you were unecessarily rude. You didn't put in the effort to find out if she was friend or foe and you didn't offer any knowledge. You didn't even give yourself the chance to.

You are not a teacher or a follower of the word. You are a lost little puppy, and you have been exposed.

To my people that know better...
Proverbs 9:6 - Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

Kephrem
08-19-2006, 12:27 AM
Bullshit! You don't what she would have said. She could have enlighten you, you old fool.

Negative. She couldn't have enlightend me a bit hateful bird.



But, instead of being humble you were unecessarily rude.

Humble? for what?? She obviously wanted to say something, and if it was against the Bible or for you it wouldn't have boded too well for her, thus the only thing left for her to do was to AGREE with the Bible, which she failed to do as well.


You didn't put in the effort to find out if she was friend or foe and you didn't offer any knowledge. You didn't even give yourself the chance to.


Listen stick to the subject, I'm sure the person can speak for herself.


You are not a teacher or a follower of the word. You are a lost little puppy, and you have been exposed.

Empty words. The only person exposed here is YOU, boldly saying it's not about tattoos but rather about someting written about several hundred years later.

72. Not to tattoo the skin Lev. 19:28

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_mitzvot#Maimonides.27_list

Aqua Luna
08-19-2006, 12:46 AM
I shall cast no more pearls before swine. And it is you who fits the description of swine, not I. I have been referring to you as such for quite a while.

Matthew 7:6 - Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Kephrem
08-19-2006, 01:42 AM
72. Not to tattoo the skin Lev. 19:28

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_mitzvot#Maimonides.27_list

In case you havn't figured it out yet, you and your ilk (non believers) are the swine Christ was refering to.

Aqua Luna
08-19-2006, 01:57 AM
Wikipedia is your Christ. Nuff said. You don't know how to think for yourself or rightly divide the word of truth.

Do you even know why you believe that it is a sin to tattoo the skin?

What about henna tattoos? Or is it just the permanent ones?

What about the tattoos that don't cut the skin, like the temporary ones that wash off?

If you know "God's law" so well, then what makes this a sin? Do you understand it, or are you just blindly following "ancient" so-called laws?

Kephrem
08-19-2006, 02:58 AM
Wikipedia is your Christ. Nuff said.

You'll say just about anything now huh?

You don't know how to think for yourself or rightly divide the word of truth.

Empty words.

Do you even know why you believe that it is a sin to tattoo the skin?


I don't believe, I know it is as stated in Leviticus 19.


What about henna tattoos? Or is it just the permanent ones?

Why now are you so concerned if its talking about permanent or temporary? just know that you've been shut down, take your L and keep it moving.

What about the tattoos that don't cut the skin, like the temporary ones that wash off?

See above. That's a question only a non believer would ask.

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

If you know "God's law" so well, then what makes this a sin? Do you understand it, or are you just blindly following "ancient" so-called laws?

You're in no position to be asking questions now after your continuous foolish mocking of Gods law.

june181972
08-19-2006, 03:23 AM
Samson and Delilah: The Perils of "Race" Mixing

The perils of mixing go far beyond the differences in race
as is obvious from how this discussion has developed

If the Universal Truths of God's Laws are to be considered eternal
then one must automatically question what the Bible is proposing
with the introduction of Jesus as being God, or the actual and direct son of God

Everyone before "Christ" would then be condemned to hell
How can the notion of sacrafice, the killing of "Christ" or an animal as in the Torah, be conducive to eternal life?

Wise men and women build, because TIME always builds
One cannot interpret righteousness because right is right and wrong is wrong, eternally

If one cannot build upon their philosophy as TIME builds upon one's life
then one is doomed to be out of TIME, and righteously irrelevant

If one understands the scriptures, then one understands that God never reveals himself
So we are left to wrestle with TIME to manifest the true and living

If the philosophies of the righteous cannot, or refuse to "mix"
then some one must be wrong

Every river, every stream, every creek, every sewer, all lead to the same ocean
Because water is water

Kephrem
08-19-2006, 03:31 AM
Actually they wouldn't. This is perhaps something you've learned through some some secular organization or Satans church setup.

edit:

Everyone before "Christ" would then be condemned to hell

june181972
08-19-2006, 03:47 AM
Actually, I think for myself
I labor to combine science with esoterics
so the truth can be manifest in all three stages of my life
Past Present and Future

Os3y3ris
08-19-2006, 09:56 AM
I almost agree with Keph. Aqueuous is downrigt making shit up.

Aqua Luna
08-19-2006, 01:03 PM
I almost agree with Keph. Aqueuous is downrigt making shit up.

Do you have anything of substance to add? I'd be interested in hearing what you have to contribute.

Aqua Luna
08-19-2006, 02:15 PM
Why's that? Didn't you say you were not moved a post or two back?
You really don't know what that means? I was speaking figuartively at that time. That meant that I didn't agree with your rendition. Moving on means that I'd like to progress the conversation, and I did so because you have a tendency towards stagnation.

Marking the perfect man doesn't have anything to do with any physical mark.
Neither does Leviticus 19:28.

According to common sense Leviticus 19:28 is talking about what we call in modern times "tattoos" and other physical markings. And I NEVER said those who have them would be least in the kingdom of heaven, I said those who teach that there's nothing wrong with breaking the least commandents would be. Straw Man.
Here, I'll quote what you said.
Originally Posted by Kephrem http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?p=553905#post553905)
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are commandments that are greater then others, yet if one teaches Gods people it's ok to break the least of them and that it's ok, then those who do and teach that will be considered the least in Gods kingdom.

Those who do what? According to you the commandment says don't get a tattoo. So, according to you...one breaks that commandment by getting a tattoo and/or teaching it. You did say that they will be considered the least in God's kingdom.

Last time I checked there was another person in this thread who understood what it meant, as do many others. Only you and perhaps some New Age so-called Christians would probably agree that it was about the "Mark of the Beast".
That doesn't make you any less confused.

But what is your arguement here? is it that the chosen of God would get a tat on their domepiece to show to the prophets they are righteous? LOL
Of course not. That is your silly assertion that a mark means a tattoo, not mines. My point is that God's people are his people because they have his mark, not his tattoo. As in Leviticus, the mark spoken of is not about tattoos.

That's right, I'm quite impreseed. Now tell us what exactly this has to do with the strict law FORBIDDING cuttings in the flesh and printing marks on the body.
There is no strict law forbidding tattoos. And you Jews certainly don't follow it if there were. Because cutting the flesh of new born babies is a Jew tradition still widely in practice today, and it is a blatant contridiction to your so-called strict law.

Saint Paul didn't have tattoos or purposely cut or print marks upon himself. That's talking about him going through his own tribulation like Christ did on the Cross. You would understand that if you read the 14th verse.
Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Paul bearing the same marks is alluding to the CROSS.
Right. The meaning of 'mark' here is alluding to something else - to the mark of crucifixition - the sacrifice of those who follow God's word, yet you can't seem to understand that the same is also true in Leviticus. You continue to take that scripture on face value by proclaiming it to be a law against tattoos. That's foolish.

The scripture says not to do cuttings for the dead, NOR print any marks on oneself, it's very clear in that it's forbidden to the Israelites in allinstances.
No. The Isrealites are God's people. They must bear his mark. Remember, they are to be perfect and mark the perfect. For they are the sons of the living God, which is why they must not cut nor mark themselves for the dead.

Romans 9:26 - And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Matthew 22:32 - I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

What I understand is that this law in verse 28 is found within the midst of a variety of laws that God gave to Israel (throughout the chapter). It doesn't say it's ok to print marks for the living thus your point here in null and void. The custom was one practiced by non Israelites thus it was/is a sin to them/us, whether for the dead, or for the living.
You don't understand this law, at all. God himself marks the living...his people must do the same. (Ezekiel 9:4-6)
Psalms 37:37 - Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace.

Leviticus is laws from the ancient world to Israel (that are still in effect) so that they don't follow the ways of the other nations. The "mark of the beast" many centuries later had/has to do with Rome and her philosephy down to America, which is the new Rome.
It's too bad that you don't understand your own laws.

Peace

Peace

Kephrem
08-19-2006, 03:17 PM
Those who do what?

I specifically said what the scripture said, those who do break the least commandents AND that teach others to break them.


According to you the commandment says don't get a tattoo. So, according to you...one breaks that commandment by getting a tattoo and/or teaching it.

I didn't say "or" please don't put words in my mouth.


You did say that they will be considered the least in God's kingdom.

No, what I said was clear, see above.


Of course not.

It was rhetorical.

That is your silly assertion that a mark means a tattoo, not mines. My point is that God's people are his people because they have his mark, not his tattoo.

What in the hell are you talking about?! lol


As in Leviticus, the mark spoken of is not about tattoos.

Assertion.

There's actually about 3 or 4 people in this thread that saw clearly what Leviticus 19:28 means, what does this say about you Ms. Moon?


There is no strict law forbidding tattoos.

See above.


And you Jews certainly don't follow it if there were.

Assertion. Next time you talk to a Israelite ask them if tattoos are lawful.


Because cutting the flesh of new born babies is a Jew tradition still widely in practice today, and it is a blatant contridiction to your so-called strict law.


Cutting the flesh in Leviticus doesn't mean the circumcision rite, it meant literally cutting ones face, legs, arms, chest, etc.

How willingly ignorant are you willing to get to try to make a point?



Right. The meaning of 'mark' here is alluding to something else - to the mark of crucifixition - the sacrifice of those who follow God's word,

Right.

yet you can't seem to understand that the same is also true in Leviticus.

No, no, no. LAAH!

One is a law, the other a sign of spiritual tribulation. Step up your Bible study.

You continue to take that scripture on face value by proclaiming it to be a law against tattoos. That's foolish.

*yawns*

I even referred you to a general information site that showed it's about tattoos, did you forget about that already?


No. The Isrealites are God's people.

I know this, who do you think you're talking to.

They must bear his mark.

That mark is not physical, Lev. 19:28 is a law against physical marks. You're going to make yourself retarded trying to argue against that fact.

Remember, they are to be perfect and mark the perfect.

Right, but that doesn't negate what Lev. 19:28 is about.


For they are the sons of the living God, which is why they must not cut nor mark themselves for the dead.

Right, because it's a law, a law that deals with something physical unlike the other scriptures you've brought up.


Romans 9:26 - And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Matthew 22:32 - I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.


Why are you bringing up these scriptures trying to argue against Lev. 19:28 being about tattoos???


It's too bad that you don't understand your own laws.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
TATTOOS & THE BIBLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Watkins Dial-the-Truth Ministries
------------------------------------------------------------------------


WHAT ABOUT LEVITICUS 19:28?

Leviticus 19:28 is the Christian (or so-called Christian?) tattooist and tattoo-bearer's worst nightmare. The Lord plainly, clearly, strongly, and without a doubt – condemns the tattoo.

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



Could that be any more clear?

"Ye shall not. . .print any marks upon you. . ."

Simple. . . Straightforward. . .Settled. . .

God Said It. . . I Believe It. . . That Settles It. . .

Right. . .?

Not hardly. . .

The clear statement from the word of God does not settle anything for this generation of disobedient, carnal, worldy, tolerant, non-judgmental, Christians. Rather than obey God, they run miles and miles and miles to "justify" their open disobedience to the Word of God.

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.

THE "FORBIDDEN" HAIRCUT

One of the silliest and childish arguments to justify the Christian tattoo is the: "Hey man, do you get a haircut or trim your beard? God condemned getting a haircut or trimming your beard in the verse before forbidding the tattoo. Dude, the tattoo is the same as getting a haircut."

Believe it or not . . . this is a widely used argument.

Leviticus 19:26-28 is a clear condemnation of pagan, witchcraft and heathen practices. Look at the context. Verse 26 is plainly referring to "enchantment [spells or witchcraft] nor observe times [astrology]. . . Verse 28 is the pagan, demonic practice of bloodletting [cuttings in your flesh] and tattooing. Why would the Lord stick in the middle a verse that "condemns simply getting a haircut"? Of course, He wouldn’t. . . And He didn’t. . .

Leviticus 19:26-28 reads:
26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.
27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

The condemnation found in verse 27 of "rounding the corners of your head" or "mar the corners of thy beard" was the forbidding of a common pagan practice that cut the hair as worship and honor of the hosts of heaven.

Here’s how Matthew Henry’s and Coffman’s Commentaries reflect on the "forbidden haircut" of Leviticus 19:27:

"Those that worshipped the hosts of heaven, in honour of them, cut their hair so as that their heads might resemble the celestial globe; but, as the custom was foolish itself, so, being done with respect to their false gods, it was idolatrous." (Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Leviticus 19:27)



"Herodotus tells of the use of this type of haircut, forming what is called a tonsure, as the practice of pagan religious cults of ancient times who did so honoring one of their gods."
(Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, Leviticus 19:27)



The fact is. . . Up until a few years ago, virtually everyone, including the most liberal Christian, KNEW the tattoo was clearly forbidden by the Word of God. And throughout history, the tattoo has ALWAYS been condemned by Bible Believing Christians. Always. Every historical resource ever written on tattoos clearly confirms this fact.

"Just as occurred in other cultures with tattoo traditions, when these pagan tribes were ‘converted’ to the Christian religion, their spiritual and cultural rites (which included tattooing, piercing and scarification) were outlawed. . ."
(Jean-Chris Miller, The Body Art Book : A Complete, Illustrated Guide to Tattoos, Piercings, and Other Body Modifications, p.9)



"Whenever missionaries encountered tattooing they eradicated it."
(Gilbert, Steve, Tattoo History: A Source Book, p. 101)



"While these and other body modifications continued to be practiced underground as a way for non-Christian people to identify each other, God forbid you got caught and your mark was revealed."
(Jean-Chris Miller, The Body Art Book : A Complete, Illustrated Guide to Tattoos, Piercings, and Other Body Modifications, p.11)



Up until a few years, virtually every commentary written understood Leviticus 19:28 as an open condemnation of the tattoo. The Christian acceptance of a tattoo was not even considered for serious discussion.

Jameison-Faussett-Brown Commentary and Explanatory on the Whole Bible writes under Leviticus 19:28


"nor print any marks upon you–by tattooing, imprinting figures of flowers, leaves, stars, and other fanciful devices on various parts of their person. The impression was made sometimes by means of a hot iron, sometimes by ink or paint, as is done by the Arab females of the present day and the different castes of the Hindus. It it probable that a strong propensity to adopt such marks in honor of some idol gave occasion to the prohibition in this verse; and they were wisely forbidden, for they were signs of apostasy; and, when once made, they were insuperable obstacles to a return."
(Jameison-Faussett-Brown Commentary and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Leviticus 19:28)



James M. Freeman in his excellent book, The New Manners & Customs of the Bible, says of Leviticus 19:28:

"Tattooing Forbidden
Both cutting and tattooing were done by the heathens, and so God forbade His people from doing so in imitation of them."
(James M. Freeman, The New Manners & Customs of the Bible, 1998 edition, p. 157)



Coffman's Commentary on the Old and New Testament under Leviticus 19:18 says:


"The cutting of one's flesh also characterized pagan worship as attested by the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel in the contest with Elijah. Tattooing was also a device of paganism. . . Christians generally disapprove of tattooing, despite the fact of the widespread use of it by many even today. In the light of what God says here, and in view of the history of it, it seems strange that anyone would pay someone else to tattoo him."
(Coffman's Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, Leviticus 19:28)



Charles R. Erdman in his commentary on Leviticus 19:28 writes:

"The custom of tattooing was forbidden, while among all the nations of antiquity it was common." (Charles R. Erdman, The Book of Leviticus, 1951 ed., p.93)



But Naves famous Topical Bible puts it best. Under the topic "Tattooing", Nave’s simply and bluntly writes: "TATTOOING, forbidden, Lev. 19;28" (Nave's Topical Bible, p. 1312)

BUT WHAT ABOUT ISAIAH 44:5 & EZEKIEL 9:4?

I've seen several references by Christian tattooers who claim Isaiah 44 and Ezekiel 9 are examples of God-ordained tattoos in the Bible.

And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
Ezekiel 9:4



One shall say, I am the Lord's; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.
Isaiah 44:5



The following excellent explanation of Isaiah 44:5 and Ezekiel 9:4 came from a Jewish web site:

1) In Leviticus 19:28 the term used is "k'thoveth qa'aqa." "K'thoveth" means "writing or inscription." "Qa'aqa" comes from a root whose meaning is "to insert or to stick in." Together, "writing that is stuck in"(see Rashi's commentary on the verse). Jewish oral tradition explains that the verse is talking about what we refer to today as tattoos, i.e. scratching or piercing the skin and filling it in with pigment.(see the tractate "Makoth" 21a).

2) Isaiah 44:5 uses the word "yichtov" which means "will write" without the word "qa'a'qa" "to insert or to stick in." Isaiah is not talking about tattoos. What he is saying is "...and he will write with his hand to the L-rd..." like someone who signs a contract to express his utmost commitment and obligation(see Metzudath David's commentary on the verse).

3) Ezekiel 9:4 uses the word "tav" which means "a mark or a sign." The man clothed with linen is going to mark the foreheads of the righteous with ink, not tattoo them!

Someone who read the verses (Isaiah 44:5 and Ezekiel 9:4) in the Hebrew original would never dream that they are referring to tattoos.
(www.geocities.com/mnlerner2000/let007.html, used with permission)

THE "TATTOOED" LORD JESUS CHRIST. . .

Some Christian tattooers go so far as claim that the Lord Jesus Christ has a tattoo!

Many Christian tattooers claim that when the Lord Jesus Christ returns in Revelation chapter 19 on a horse – He has a tattoo on his thigh!


Revelation 19:11-16 says:
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.


I know you don’t believe Christians can be that deceived so here’s the proof:

"And what of Christ Himself? Twice in chapter 19, our Lord is depicted as having a name written on Him (verses 12 and 16). As unthinkable as it may be for some to picture our Lord Jesus as having a tattoo, the author of the Apocalypse had no problem with it."
(www.larryoverton.com/berean/tatoos.htm)



Revelation 19:16 clearly is referring to the "vesture his thigh" – ". . .he hath on his vesture and on his thigh. . ."

Can anyone with any spiritual discernment (and a brain) really believe the Lord Jesus Christ has a tattoo? Isn’t it amazing how spiritually blind someone becomes when they began to justify their disobedience to the Word of God?

But what really is frightening about this gross, perverted, wicked interpretation of a "tattooed" Jesus Christ in Revelation 19:16 – it makes the Lord Jesus Christ a SINNER!

It means the Lord Jesus CLEARLY disobeyed Leviticus 19:28! It means the Lord Jesus Christ was not Holy! He was not the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. He clearly was disobedient and broke the Leviticual Law of Leviticus 19:28!

And if the Lord Jesus Christ committed sin – everyone is either in hell or on the way to hell. There is no salvation without a sinless, spotless Lamb of God. It took a sinless, perfect, Saviour to pay for your sins.

And thank God – despite what these spiritually sicko, perverted, Christian tattooers "preach" – The Lord Jesus Christ was without sin – and without "tattoo"!

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1 Peter 1:18-19



For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Hebrews 4:15

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
2 Corinthians 5:21

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1 Peter 2:21-22

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
1 John 3:4-5

DEFILING THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD

Most Christians, even the most carnal and backslidden, would never desecrate or defile the local church building. Even among most lost people there is a reverence and sacredness to the church building.

But. . . Did you know?

If you are truly born again the Holy Spirit of God dwells within in (John 14:17, Romans 8:9, 11) and your body is the temple of God. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 makes this very clear.

19 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?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20



And . . . Did you know?

The Lord warns several times of the seriousness of defiling the temple of God – your body! In 1 Corinthians 3, the Lord clearly and sternly warns against defiling your body – the temple of God. If any man defiles the temple of God – HIM SHALL GOD DESTROY!

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17



My Christian friend, you’d better watch what you do with your body. It is the temple of a Holy God. You’d better not defile it with pagan, devil-worshipping tattoos!

". . . If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy. . ."

What God said – He meant!

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Numbers 23:19



7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Galatians 6:7-8



Do you really believe the Lord Jesus Christ is pleased with a Christian wearing a pagan tattoo? Do you honestly believe God’s perfect will is for a Christian, any Christian, to be "marked" with a demonic tattoo?

With the unbiased documentation and Bible we’ve given (and we could supply much, much more) there is no question to the pagan and devil-worshipping source of the tattoo. Every tattoo historian I’ve read, traces the root of the tattoo to religious paganism. Every one.

2 Corinthians 6:14-17 is another warning against the tattoo. Notice the warning against the "fellowshipping" and concord with Christ and Belial (the devil). Verse 16 is very interesting. . . As it relates the "fellowshipping" with your body – the temple of the living God.

2 Corinthians 6:14-17 reads:
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

I realize in writing this, a lot of Christians (or so-called Christians?) could care less what God says. They’re gonna do what they want to do – despite heaven or hell. But there are many Christians who want to serve God more than anything – with ever fiber of their soul. I’ve talked to many, many Christians who were thinking about getting a tattoo. But after showing them the satanic origin of the tattoo they realized a tattoo was not the will of God. And it was for those "good and faithful servants" of the Lord Jesus Christ that this was written for.

His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
Matthew 25:23



Friend, God loves you and desires more than anything you love and obey Him. He desires first of all obedience unto salvation by receiving the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:12). And after salvation, His will for you is to serve and love Him with all you heart, body, mind and soul.

You won’t regret it!

It’ll be worth it one day!

If you are truly a Christian and still have doubts about whether the tattoo is the perfect will of God, go back through this article with an open Bible and an open hear. Prayerfully, look up the verses. And before you start, pray and ask the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
2 Peter 3:17-18

http://www.av1611.org/tattoos/bible.html

I may not agree with everything said on this site, but the jist of the article shows what original Jews and Christians thought of tats.

PEACE

Aqua Luna
08-19-2006, 03:28 PM
aaahahaa....I had to stop reading right here just to laugh out loud, It was too ridiculous:

Originally Posted by Kephrem
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?

lmao...if you or any person on this planet needs a law to command you to not have sex with animals then you are just too fucking stupid to talk to.

Kephrem
08-19-2006, 03:41 PM
That wasn't the arguement dingbat, the author of the article was getting across how people who profess themselves to be Christian try to justify the things that they do because it's not specifically mentioned in the New Testament.

Aqua Luna
08-19-2006, 03:56 PM
That wasn't the arguement dingbat, the author of the article was getting across how people who profess themselves to be Christian try to justify the things that they do because it's not specifically mentioned in the New Testament.

That is exactly the arguement. The only group of people that needed a law that commands them to not have sex with animals were the savage devils in the wilderness of the caucas mountains. That's who Moses' books were sent for, ignoramus. He used those commandments to raise up the serpent. The Original man did not fit that description.

Kephrem
08-19-2006, 05:22 PM
That is exactly the arguement.

The arguement means the topic of the article. You my dear lack the required amount of intelligence to hold an intellectual debate.

The only group of people that needed a law that commands them to not have sex with animals were the savage devils in the wilderness of the caucas mountains.

Having a law that says to not do this or that doesn't mean the people were practicing the act, the laws encompass a plethora of statues and commandents meant to warn against practices done amongst the nations around them.

Lev 18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.


That's who Moses' books were sent for, ignoramus.

No, they wern't. Moses was addressing black people, Shemitic Hebrews in the Sinai Peninsula.


He used those commandments to raise up the serpent.

You don't know what you're talking about. The serpent was part of a ROD that was divinely used by Moses to prevent actual serpents from biting up rebellious Israelites.

Num 21:7 ¶ Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
Num 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
Num 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

Kephrem
08-19-2006, 05:28 PM
Tell us why after reading the article you've completly abandoned your former arguement against Leviticus 19:28 being about tattoos in favor of this new one where you now claim Moses was dealing with white people in damn Europe. I take it you've conceded the former arguement, yes?

Aqua Luna
08-19-2006, 06:32 PM
Tell us why after reading the article you've completly abandoned your former arguement against Leviticus 19:28 being about tattoos in favor of this new one where you now claim Moses was dealing with white people in damn Europe. I take it you've conceded the former arguement, yes?

What I'm saying about Moses is not a new arguement. It's old. I first said it several pages back.

And I haven't abandoned what I said about Leviticus. Your article did nothing but make me laugh out loud and it made you look like a religous fool.

You have offered nothing for me to concede to. What!?.....you want me to concede to some silly notion that people with tattoos have broken the "law of God", and that people who say it's ok to get tattoos are the least in "God's kingdom"?

No, that is nothing to concede to but foolishness. And you are the fool, not I

Kephrem
08-19-2006, 10:16 PM
Your article did nothing but make me laugh out loud and it made you look like a religous fool.

If I'm that, then are you an uncivilized one for taking the position that there's nothing wrong with Gods people marking up their bodies (temples)?


You have offered nothing for me to concede to. What!?.....you want me to concede to some silly notion that people with tattoos have broken the "law of God",

No, my position was all along that it was/is recognized as a Biblical law, I wasn't trying to covince anyone otherwise.


and that people who say it's ok to get tattoos are the least in "God's kingdom"?

That's if they're one of Gods people who profess to hold and teach Gods law/truth.

Os3y3ris
08-19-2006, 10:44 PM
Do you have anything of substance to add? I'd be interested in hearing what you have to contribute.

The verse is about tats.

Aqua Luna
08-19-2006, 11:17 PM
The verse is about tats.

No, it's not.

Aqua Luna
08-19-2006, 11:27 PM
If I'm that, then are you an uncivilized one for taking the position that there's nothing wrong with Gods people marking up their bodies (temples)?
Since when does religous = civilized? smh...King James did a helluva job with his biblical propaganda.

And there is absoloutely nothing wrong with a neatly done, modest, meaningful tattoo. And having one certainly does not mean that a person is uncivilized.

No, my position was all along that it was/is recognized as a Biblical law, I wasn't trying to covince anyone otherwise.
That doesn't make it truthful.

That's if they're one of Gods people who profess to hold and teach Gods law/truth.
God doesn't have a law that forbids tattoos.

june181972
08-20-2006, 09:21 AM
The Bible is the most commercialized book in the U.S.A.
I will go as far as to say in all of so-called western civilization

When something is commercialized
it is devalued, misused, and abused

Though highly important
The Scriptures are only a piece to the puzzle of righteousness and civilization

If one tries to force another to believe in something
one will only end up with a hypocrite

One can only plant the seed of truth in another
only TIME can determine wether or not that seed will blossom to a healthy and fully developed state

Being proficient in the scriptures does not
directly translate into Godly ways and actions

Os3y3ris
08-20-2006, 11:07 AM
A tat is both a cut and a mark. How is that acceptable under the following?

(Lev 19:28) Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Aqua Luna
08-20-2006, 07:39 PM
Having a law that says to not do this or that doesn't mean the people were practicing the act, the laws encompass a plethora of statues and commandents meant to warn against practices done amongst the nations around them.
God's people were in need of no such warning against having sex with animals they knew better than that.

The beast that my people need to be warned away from is the beast in revelations 19:12. They must not defile themselves with him. For his mark is the mark of the dead - the decieved.

Lev 18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
That whole chapter is commandments against incest and sex with animals -according to you Jews and according to the article that you posted.
My people were never in need of such a warning or commandment. Is that the kind of savagery your people were tempted to do? Didn't they know better? Are you a Black man?

No, they wern't. Moses was addressing black people, Shemitic Hebrews in the Sinai Peninsula.
Are you not aware that a 'Moses' was spoken of in prophecy, and that the true children of Isreal were also spoken of in prophecy, and were to be lead out of a prophetic Egypt = Mystery Babylon = Amerikkka??

You don't know what you're talking about. The serpent was part of a ROD that was divinely used by Moses to prevent actual serpents from biting up rebellious Israelites.
LMAO...are you talking about a magic wand? hocus pocus? wtf? What kind of childish magical mess are you speaking of now?
The wise man knows that it is better to understand the scriptures in the figurative and prophetic sense....

(1 Corinthians 13:11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.


Num 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

(John 3:14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Like I said, this scripture describes a past lifting of the serpent, then it describes the prophetic (future) lifting up of the Son of Man

Numbers 21:9 says that Moses lifted up a serpent of brass. This is in reference to the prophetic lifting up of the Son of man.

(Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

All of this lifting up has to do with the knowledge vs. trick knowledge....and not with actual snakes or snake bites.

Aqua Luna
08-20-2006, 07:40 PM
Samson and Delilah: The Perils of "Race" Mixing

The perils of mixing go far beyond the differences in race
as is obvious from how this discussion has developed

If the Universal Truths of God's Laws are to be considered eternal
then one must automatically question what the Bible is proposing
with the introduction of Jesus as being God, or the actual and direct son of God

Everyone before "Christ" would then be condemned to hell
How can the notion of sacrafice, the killing of "Christ" or an animal as in the Torah, be conducive to eternal life?

Wise men and women build, because TIME always builds
One cannot interpret righteousness because right is right and wrong is wrong, eternally

If one cannot build upon their philosophy as TIME builds upon one's life
then one is doomed to be out of TIME, and righteously irrelevant

If one understands the scriptures, then one understands that God never reveals himself
So we are left to wrestle with TIME to manifest the true and living

If the philosophies of the righteous cannot, or refuse to "mix"
then some one must be wrong

Every river, every stream, every creek, every sewer, all lead to the same ocean
Because water is water

Peace!

-Mad Skillz-
08-20-2006, 11:21 PM
Ya'll are wack, how do you think Jesus got all the Bitches? He obviously had some pretty sick tats, and all the Ho's and Plays was like "Daaamn Jesus, thats some tight shit" (Verse 31)

The Wizzard
08-21-2006, 01:55 AM
Ya'll are wack, how do you think Jesus got all the Bitches? He obviously had some pretty sick tats, and all the Ho's and Plays was like "Daaamn Jesus, thats some tight shit" (Verse 31)

lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo l
lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo l
lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo l

come to think of it, that wasn't funny at all

Kephrem
08-21-2006, 12:55 PM
God's people were in need of no such warning against having sex with animals they knew better than that.

That is your opnion. There have been laws against every and all wicked acts since the CODE OF HAMMURABI to the LAWS of ANCIENT KEMET.

That whole chapter is commandments against incest and sex with animals -


FALSE.

Anybody can read it for themselves and see other sexual crimes are mentioned as well, adultery and homosexuality.

My people were never in need of such a warning or commandment.


Whose your people agaiin? What is their ancient name?


Is that the kind of savagery your people were tempted to do?

A law against such things doesn't arbitrarily imply that such acts were being committed.

The laws in question were against following foreign customs. Try to Understand that part of it.

Lev 18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.


But you can't even decipher a simple thing like Leviticus 19:28 being a law against tatoos, so why should we expect you to understand that?


Are you not aware that a 'Moses' was spoken of in prophecy,

The account of Moses in the Bible is not prophecy, it's history, he was also a prophet who spoke prophecy pertaining to the last days.

and that the true children of Isreal were also spoken of in prophecy, and were to be lead out of a prophetic Egypt = Mystery Babylon = Amerikkka??

I should, my elders were the first to teach that in Babylon, on this side. Later stolen by the likes of your NOI enlighteners and NGE elders.

LMAO...are you talking about a magic wand? hocus pocus? wtf? What kind of childish magical mess are you speaking of now?

I'm speaking what the Bible says, but you and your a-alikes, your just like the Devil, who has mocked the Bible since their captivity in Europe.

The only thing "hocus pocus" is your Bellevue psycho ward Father Allah getting blasted a mystical 7 times and getting dishonorably buried like the cokehead alleged god he was.


The wise man knows that it is better to understand the scriptures in the figurative and prophetic sense....

You know nothing of Wisdom, it doesn't enter malicious souls such as yourself. The NGE are an Ordo ab Chao Satanic false Muslim/Islamic organization who were given their headquarters by a WHITE DEVIL, that your junkie NOI rebel leader Clarence was also buddies with.


(1 Corinthians 13:11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

You are a bastard, and not even a child. Try to get to that level first.

Aqua Luna
08-21-2006, 01:31 PM
That is your opnion. There have been laws against every and all wicked acts since the CODE OF HAMMURABI to the LAWS of ANCIENT KEMET.
Listen up Jew...
(rev 2:9) I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

FALSE.
Anybody can read it for themselves and see other sexual crimes are mentioned as well, adultery and homosexuality.
Learn how to read. I didn't say only about...I said is about - That does not exclude other shit. Jew...you are the false one here.
(Acts 13:6) - And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, .....

To my people that know better....
(1 John 4:1) - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Whose your people agaiin? What is their ancient name?
God - proper name being ALLAH.

A law against such things doesn't arbitrarily imply that such acts were being committed.
They were being commited by the savage devils in the caves of Europe. Do the knowledge, child.

The laws in question were against following foreign customs. Try to Understand that part of it.
Lev 18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
The foreign people doing the foreign customs were the savage devils in the caves of Europe not God's people...they knew better, they didn't need to be warned or commanded against having sex with animals.

But you can't even decipher a simple thing like Leviticus 19:28 being a law against tatoos, so why should we expect you to understand that?
You can only expect me to deliver truth....I destroy what you decipher, if it's not the truth.

The account of Moses in the Bible is not prophecy, it's history, he was also a prophet who spoke prophecy pertaining to the last days.
And he spoke of one to come who was like him - a prophetic Moses. (Acts 3:22)

I should, my elders were the first to teach that in Babylon, on this side. Later stolen by the likes of your NOI enlighteners and NGE elders.
Who you talkin bout? The Khazars? Those must be your elders since you claim the same name that they do, you are not even as important as the fake Jews. You are a deceived dead man who lays with beasts.

I'm speaking what the Bible says, but you and your a-alikes, your just like the Devil, who has mocked the Bible since their captivity in Europe.
You don't know what the bible says....wikipedia is your bible.

You are a bastard, and not even a child. Try to get to that level first.

Try to get to a 3rd grade reading level and then maybe, just maybe, you might be able to build with the Gods and Earths

Hollow Dartz
08-21-2006, 02:26 PM
This is a great discussion but all this "Multiquoting" is giving me a headache.

june181972
08-21-2006, 03:49 PM
Samson's strength was not literally in his hair. He was set apart, even before his conception, to lead Isreal. The hair is a physical representation of Samson's growth and lifetime.

This quote was typed partly because of the need to demonstrate how foolish religion can be.

Ask a religious person why they believe in some or all of the magical and mystical analogies in the Scriptures, many will say "because God can do anything, its not for us to understand"

When one tries to equate God with science, the religious will say that that is blasphemous
Science, at its most broad yet basic level, is an attempt to understand the Universe we live in
Did not "God" create this Universe? Oh religious one

God and science is what needs to be "mixed"
then all this devilishness about:
'my religion came 1st'
'your religion is stolen from my religion'
'your religion came from man, mine came from God'
might come to an end

Peace to All those who seek the Truth

Kephrem
08-21-2006, 08:12 PM
Listen up you dirty Jew...
(rev 2) I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

That's talking about the Caucasian-european, the Herodian, Khazar, Asheknazi, (look up those name) false Jews of today.


There have been laws against every and all wicked acts since the CODE OF HAMMURABI to the LAWS of ANCIENT KEMET. -- Kephrem

Stop ducking what you said too, address your foolish statement that original peoples didn't need any such laws when in fact EVERY LAW had been made before any of your imaginative "cave dwelling Jews".

Learn how to read. I didn't say only about...I said is about -

What the fuck you think? that people can't read here? Shut yo stupid ass up.

That whole chapter is commandments against incest and sex with animals - -- Moon


(Acts 13:6) - And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, .....

To my people that know better....
(1 John 4:1) - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

LMAO @ "my people who know better" then she goes on to again quote scriptures. The nerve of this athiest to quote scripture when all she does is twist, lie, and disrespect them.


God - proper name being ALLAH.

Can you show us the African and Asian records of tribe and nation of people named "Allah"?


They were being commited by the savage devils in the caves of Europe. Do the knowledge, child.


Tell us again what the hell this has to do with the laws of the Bible.


The foreign people doing the foreign customs were the savage devils]

You're an illiterate swine.

It tells you in the scriptures in question who were the people committing those acts. (not to say the caucasian wern't doing them as well)


in the caves of Europe not God's people...


See above.


they knew better, they didn't need to be warned or commanded against having sex with animals.


No shit they knew better. Like I said there existed laws against many things in the ancient world, it doesn't mean the people in general were doing them. You have the mind of a child.


And he spoke of one to come who was like him - a prophetic Moses. (Acts 3:22)

Moses prophesied of a prophet like himself. Moses was a prophet and a deliverer. That person was/is the true, and only Black Jesus Christ, a Hebrew Israelite, a Judahite, not a cracked out they skull 5 Pretender.


Who you talkin bout? The Khazars?

Laah fool. I specifically said Babylon on this side. Which is AMERIKKKA, where my elders taught/teach about true Israel and prophecy of coming out of Babylon. The Khazars were an ancient eastern people before transforming themselves into the fake Jews.

Those must be your elders since you claim the same name that they do,

Wow you are seriously brain dead. Didn't you just quote Revelation 2 verse 9 to me? If Christ called out the fake Jews, and said they are not the Jews, but do lie, what does that mean by process of elimination stupid? Let's see if you have an ounce of understanding in your pigeon sized brain.

you are not even as important as the fake Jews. You are a deceived dead man who lays with beasts.

I never, nor would I ever fuck you ma.


You don't know what the bible says....wikipedia is your bible.

So does this mean the people who knew Leviticus 19:28 to be about tattoos also use wikipedia as their Bible?

you might be able to build with the Gods and Earths...you filthy jewish swine.

How exactly did you build in this thread again? Do you think the people on here don't already know how you completly made/make shit up, and then go on defending it even in the face of obvious facts?

Aqua Luna
08-21-2006, 09:09 PM
^^^ You have been reduced to a babbling wreck.
Your petty insults = boring.

Kephrem
08-21-2006, 09:47 PM
Your arguements = a hot pile of shit

Aqua Luna
08-21-2006, 10:28 PM
lmao...don't get a tattoo cus you'll be condemned and damned to hell!!!! lmao

Kephrem
08-22-2006, 12:19 AM
Straw man. Show us where I said or implied that.

Synergy777
08-22-2006, 01:36 PM
race mixing is what the creator wants. race/caste/class system is satanic, no matter who it favours.

bob marley was mixed race, wasn't he. unity is the key.

1 love, is that, love for all, .peace

Aqua Luna
08-22-2006, 06:39 PM
I like Bob Marley...but, I also like having melanin.

Bob got that bomb reggae tho.

Synergy777
08-23-2006, 10:46 AM
mixing races is cool, its just with mindset of whites being so anti equality, anti anything that destroys their false history, which they present to us as truth, then they all gang up. so until they come correct, it is fraught with pitfalls. the ones who are correct, then its all good. however there are very few.

the reason they cling onto false history/religion, is because they do not want to lose white supremacy, and as white history/religion is their foundation for the satanic racial supremacy they enjoy, they will defend it.

even if the facts are in front of them, they still deny it, its funny but its tragic at the same time. it is the egos security blanket, which they cannot let go off.

june181972
08-23-2006, 03:27 PM
race mixing has NEVER been manifested in a peaceful and positive state

the notion of separation is not racist nor discriminatory

it is a wise notion after examination of how integration has unfolded and failed throughout the times

New Discipline
08-23-2006, 04:44 PM
True indeed. Deuteronomy 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.


race mixing has NEVER been manifested in a peaceful and positive state

the notion of separation is not racist nor discriminatory

it is a wise notion after examination of how integration has unfolded and failed throughout the times

MsRzaRecTaH
09-28-2006, 11:36 AM
Ya'll are wack, how do you think Jesus got all the Bitches? He obviously had some pretty sick tats, and all the Ho's and Plays was like "Daaamn Jesus, thats some tight shit" (Verse 31)

ha this shit made my day.
:thumbup: