by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I'm trying to play devil's advocate here:
If you receive blood from an unknown person, that person could die, and then the blood you received from them would need to be poured out, which would be impossible since it is mixed with your blood. Now Jehovah hates you and you can't get into paradise.
The whole doctrine of not eating blood or sacrificed meat to idols can be summed up in one scripture. Mark 7: 17-18 Jesus said nothing entering in to a man can defile him only what comes out can , thereby declaring all meat clean.
Nothing entering in to man can defile him, nothing! Jesus never says anything about eating blood because it's covered in this scripture. Who cares about the book of Acts. Ask a jw who his master is Jesus or the supposed writer of Acts, Luke? The writtings of Paul do not contradict what Jesus supposedly said and he Paul claims visions from Jesus. Luke never met Jesus or had any visions from Jesus. Remember Mark chapter 7 verses 17 and 18 the verses that kill the jw blood doctrine !
If you receive blood from an unknown person, that person could die, and then the blood you received from them would need to be poured out, which would be impossible since it is mixed with your blood. Now Jehovah hates you and you can't get into paradise. - Bradford
Hi Bradford thank you for your feedback.
My main point is that blood only becomes a sacred symbol when a life is taken. The life is represented by blood. The person who takes the life of an animal must symbolically return the life to god by pouring out the blood on the ground or on the altar.
If a blood donor later dies that has no connection to their blood donation. An unbled animal found "already dead" could be eaten with impunity since nobody took the life.
Your (devil's advocate) objection would only apply if somebody was killed in order to take their blood for donation.
Jesus said nothing entering in to a man can defile him only what comes out can , thereby declaring all meat clean. ... Who cares about the book of Acts. - Crazyguy
It's an interesting point but it's never going to be much help to a JW.
They care about the book of Acts.
It fits their dogma to believe that Jesus cancelled what they call the "ceremonial law". They put the restriction regarding blood in a different category. I tend to agree with them about that. Blood was always more than a dietary restriction.
My approach allows them to hold on to everything they already believe about blood. The only thing we have to show is that blood transfusions are not an offense against the law on blood in either the OT or the NT just as eating an animal found "already dead" was not a crime.
Jesus said nothing entering in to a man can defile him only what comes out can , thereby declaring all meat clean.
You could make an equally valid argument that the symbolism vis-à-vis blood was transferred by Jesus' own command to the sacraments of communion. (Emblems of Memorial to JW's.)
Animal sacrifices no longer had any sin atoning value whatsoever and the requirements to pour life blood out on the ground, not eat it, etc. therefore evaporate into thin air.
As Cofty points out above, that doesn't cut any mustard with JW's. They are a bizarre hybrid between Christianity and Judaism with the ignorance of both and the understanding of neither....
The thing to remember is that the final verses of Leviticus 17 are pretty clear what the penalty of eating this sort of flesh was.
And every person who eats what dies of itself or what is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or a sojourner, shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening; then he shall be clean. 16 But if he does not wash them or bathe his flesh, he shall bear his iniquity.”
Basically take a shower and be unclean for the evening. So although the command to not eat blood is clear in my mind the fact that someone taking it is considered to have disassociated himself or is disfellowshipped goes grossly outside the bounds of the scriptures.
Interesting that these final verses are rarely if ever read or quoted by the Watchtower.
See they can't back off of it now. Too many have been killed. They're stuck with the hard and fast blind prohibition that completely ignores the sanctity of life in a trauma situation.
They are a bizarre hybrid between Christianity and Judaism with the ignorance of both and the understanding of neither.... - TD
Very well put.
TD said: They are a bizarre hybrid between Christianity and Judaism with the ignorance of both and the understanding of neither....
Yes... JW's - bastardizing ancient beliefs with their own brand of bull sh!te for over 100 years. And still, Armageddon has not arrived.
<sarcasm> But they don't go beyond what is written... nooooo. </sarcasm>
Just got this response to your article from a JW apologist
Lev. 17:15 'Anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean. 16 But if he does not wash his clothes and bathe himself, he will be held responsible.'
<<...in this case guilt could be erased by a ceremony of purification, which indicates it was a case where the commandment was violated innocently, unknowingly, as might happen when someone purchased or bartered for meat, or when eating as a guest of someone else.>>
Does this scripture say that the one eating this meat knew that it was "torn by beasts in the field?"
Think about it.
By the way... At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast.
“You must not eat any animal that was found dead. You may give it to the foreign resident who is inside your cities, and he may eat it, or it may be sold to a foreigner. For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.
“You must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk."
Vander - I have covered all of those angles in detail in the original thread here...
None of them work just take a few minutes to read the verses in context.
