by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
They hoist them by the hind legs and then slit their throats letting the heart pump out as much blood as possible while the animal screams in horror.
You should see how Islamics slaughter a camel for food. I cannot.
Interesting how the Bible uses the word hunting (for Israel). Actually it was trapping. The animal was caught live uninjured and then slaughtered and blood poured out.
Cofty points out that since God gave permission to the Gentiles to eat animals found dead (unbled!) Det 14:21, God also established by doing so that the blood of such dead animals is not sacred because had it been sacred it could not be eaten along with the flesh by anyone including Gentiles without violating God’s law to mankind (Gen 9:4)
In Nu 15:31, the penalty for deliberately violating any command stated in the law was death, but even if someone could be executed for eating animals found dead (unbled) for deliberately doing so, the person would be executed for despising God’s command; that would be the charge against such person and that would be the reason for his guilt and execution –despising God’s command; eating an animal found dead (unbled) would not be the reason for such person’s execution because there is no penalty stated in the law for doing so except the resulting state of ceremonial uncleanness –but not death or any other penalty. Albeit the act of a Jew eating an animal found dead did not incur the death penalty and that is the point –according to cofty.
(Genesis 9:4) 4 "Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat. . .” is God’s command to mankind, so by God giving Gentiles permission to eat an animal found dead (unbled) as he seemingly does does in Deut 14:21, a distinction is made between the blood of a slaughtered animal that is going to be eaten (and it is forbidden for such animal to be eaten by anyone whatsoever without being bled) and the blood of an animal found dead which is allowed to be eaten by Gentiles. There is a distinction between both sorts of blood.
Cofty appears to say that when a person eats a found dead unbled animal, according to Gen 9:4 such person is also eating the blood of such animal, but unlike Gen9:4 the life of such dead unbled animal is not in the blood with the carcass (that is to say God does not require such blood to be poured out) and that is why God allows such blood to be eaten with the carcass. And now cofty says that technically it would be as if the blood of the dead animal is eaten by itself, and by derivative: ” Blood was sacred insofar as it represented a life that had been taken by a human.” –as cofty argues in his OP.
But is that the way Jehovah sees it? Can a worshiper of Jehovah consume blood taken from live humans or from live animals? -to drink a couple of glasses of blood or more from a live cow or from a live human; it sounds shocking but is it a sin considering cofty's theory? That is the question that needs to be answered.
Cofty points out that since God gave permission to the Gentiles to eat animals found dead (unbled!) Det 14:21, God also established by doing so that the blood of such dead animals is not sacred because had it been sacred it could not be eaten along with the flesh by anyone including Gentiles without violating God’s law to mankind (Gen 9:4)
In Nu 15:31, the penalty for deliberately violating any command stated in the law was death, but even if someone could be executed for eating animals found dead (unbled) for deliberately doing so, the person would be executed for despising God’s command; that would be the charge against such person and that would be the reason for his guilt and execution –despising God’s command; eating an animal found dead (unbled) would not be the reason for such person’s execution because there is no penalty stated in the law for doing so except the resulting state of ceremonial uncleanness –but not death or any other penalty. Albeit the act of a Jew eating an animal found dead did not incur the death penalty and that is the point –according to cofty.
This is
the point, God only viewed someone as being ceremonial unclean as a consequence of eating the carcass of an animal found dead. God didn’t view them as worthy
of the death penalty. If they had actually broken God’s law, then he wouldn’t
be telling them to go and wash, he would be commanding that the person be taken
outside and stoned to death. God telling the person to just go and wash actually
makes him seem more reasonable and loving. It is also an indication that the
reason the person was only unclean was because God didn’t view the eating of
the blood as very important. Why? because the blood from an animal found dead
was not sacred.
If God viewed all blood as sacred, then the perfect life of Jesus was contained in his blood. There was no reason for Jesus to die. All that God’s law would have required was for Jesus to pass satan’s trials and then hand over a cup of his sacred, perfect and tested blood. The scriptural fact is that the blood of Jesus only had sacred sacrificial value once his life was taken Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18,19.
Cofty's explanation solves the problem of God apparently speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, without having to rely upon the claim that people sometimes accidentally eat the carcasses of animals found dead. The choice is yours, Cofty and life or Fisherman and death.
My response to this verse is spread across a number of posts so I want to bring it together here and add some more comments.
Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the Lord your God. - Deut. 14:21
This verse appears to be a change to the law given earlier at Lev.17:13-15. There we find a sharp contrast between the consequences of killing an animal and eating it unbled and of eating an unbled animal found already dead. The former results in "cutting off" but the latter only requires that the "culprit" take a bath and change their clothes.
Rather than pitting Deut.14 against Lev.17 - choosing one as authoritative and rejecting the other - the challenge is to reconcile both texts.
During their wanderings in the wilderness the Israelites only had the law recorded in Leviticus. Moses did not deliver the words recorded in Deuteronomy for another forty years. Many thousands of sheep and cattle must have died of natural causes during those four decades and - based on the law of Leviticus - eaten by their owners. Baths were taken, clothes changed and nobody was punished. Only Aaron and his sons who served at the Tabernacle were prohibited from eating an animal found already dead during this period in Israel's history.
Unlike an animal that had been killed, the sacredness of blood is never mentioned in connection with eating an animal found already dead. The issue is not blood but ceremonial uncleanness.
A sheep or cow was a valuable asset, finding it dead would have been a significant loss to its owner. Obviously they would want to salvage something if possible. In Leviticus God said that whatever they decided to do it had to be included in the long list of things that resulted in uncleanness. Giving birth, menstruation, sex between husband and wife, touching any dead body, skin disease and many more normal things resulted in the Israelite having to bathe and change to become clean again. Eating the remains of an animal found dead had exactly the same consequences; but so did burying it. No doubt this personal decision would largely be based on the condition of the carcass and how long it had been dead.
Forty years later the circumstances of the nation were changing. Now they were going to be settling down in towns and villages and living among foreigners. Keen to encourage ceremonial cleanness Moses now encourages them to choose a better option of selling the carcass to a foreigner. That way - assuming the buyer collects - they don't have to touch or eat the carcass and avoid becoming unclean. None of the circumstances that resulted in uncleanness were a crime or a sin but some were more avoidable than others. Moses identifies eating an animal found already dead as something that can reasonably be avoided in the interests of holiness.
Notice Moses' new instruction - "sell it to a foreigner". If the blood of an animal found already dead was sacred then this would be a very strange instruction. If the blood represented the life of the dead beast then it must be buried with the animal returning it to god. God's original prohibition regarding blood was given through Noah so it would be impossible that Moses would instruct Israelites to entice foreigners to do something that god abhorred.
Moses' instruction here is consistent with Lev.17. The blood of an animal found already dead has no sacred significance since nobody took the life and therefore nobody can return it to god. The only issue is that eating the animal makes the person temporarily unclean. Leviticus gives permission to eat the animal with the proviso that the Israelite must bathe and change their garments. Forty years later Moses goes further and admonishes them to avoid unnecessary uncleanness and sell the carcass to a foreigner who was not under the law.
And now the question you keep avoiding Fishy...
God to Israel - "If you kill an animal and eat it unbled I will have you stoned to death. If you eat an unbled animal that died of itself I will insist you take nice warm bath and put on a clean robe."
Please explain the reason for the difference.
Fisherman - "Not possible to drain every drop of blood from meat. So everyone that eats meat also eats some blood."
Who are you, and what have you done with Fisherman?
When I discussed this with a JW at a cart in Edinburgh last weekend it was difficult to get him to focus on the old testament background. As soon as he saw the looming problem with Lev.17 he only wanted to talk about Acts 15
Eventually he agreed to give me exactly two minutes to explain the background to acts15 which I duly did.
I'm wrestling with the best way to get into this subject with a JW.
I think I will post my thoughts on Acts 15 here later today.
Any thoughts on the best way to approach this with a cart JW the would be welcome.
This verse appears to be a change to the law given earlier at Lev.17:13-15. There we find a sharp contrast between the consequences of killing an animal and eating it unbled and of eating an unbled animal found already dead. The former results in "cutting off" but the latter only requires that the "culprit" take a bath and change their clothes. Rather than pitting Deut.14 against Lev.17 - choosing one as authoritative and rejecting the other - the challenge is to reconcile both texts. During their wanderings in the wilderness the Israelites only had the law recorded in Leviticus. Moses did not deliver the words recorded in Deuteronomy for another forty years. Many thousands of sheep and cattle must have died of natural causes during those four decades and - based on the law of Leviticus - eaten by their owners. Baths were taken, clothes changed and nobody was punished. Only Aaron and his sons who served at the Tabernacle were prohibited from eating an animal found already dead during this period in Israel's history.Unlike an animal that had been killed, the sacredness of blood is never mentioned in connection with eating an animal found already dead. The issue is not blood but ceremonial uncleanness.A sheep or cow was a valuable asset, finding it dead would have been a significant loss to its owner. Obviously they would want to salvage something if possible. In Leviticus God said that whatever they decided to do it had to be included in the long list of things that resulted in uncleanness. Giving birth, menstruation, sex between husband and wife, touching any dead body, skin disease and many more normal things resulted in the Israelite having to bathe and change to become clean again. Eating the remains of an animal found dead had exactly the same consequences; but so did burying it. No doubt this personal decision would largely be based on the condition of the carcass and how long it had been dead.Forty years later the circumstances of the nation were changing. Now they were going to be settling down in towns and villages and living among foreigners. Keen to encourage ceremonial cleanness Moses now encourages them to choose a better option of selling the carcass to a foreigner. That way - assuming the buyer collects - they don't have to touch or eat the carcass and avoid becoming unclean. None of the circumstances that resulted in uncleanness were a crime or a sin but some were more avoidable than others. Moses identifies eating an animal found already dead as something that can reasonably be avoided in the interests of holiness.Notice Moses' new instruction - "sell it to a foreigner". If the blood of an animal found already dead was sacred then this would be a very strange instruction. If the blood represented the life of the dead beast then it must be buried with the animal returning it to god. God's original prohibition regarding blood was given through Noah so it would be impossible that Moses would instruct Israelites to entice foreigners to do something that god abhorred.Moses' instruction here is consistent with Lev.17. The blood of an animal found already dead has no sacred significance since nobody took the life and therefore nobody can return it to god. The only issue is that eating the animal makes the person temporarily unclean. Leviticus gives permission to eat the animal with the proviso that the Israelite must bathe and change their garments. Forty years later Moses goes further and admonishes them to avoid unnecessary uncleanness and sell the carcass to a foreigner who was not under the law.
Trash. Your commentary is trash. Stop posting your trash for me to respond to. Outlaw I need your help!!!!!!!!!
All of the law was binding regardless of your cofty trashy commentary. You must support your views on this topic with scripture not trash.
I think our JW apologist has finally hit bedrock.
Why would anyone sacrifice the life of their loved ones on the basis of this sort of muddled dogma?
Hey dumbass, you're the one that bumped this and decided to take Cofty on. This is hilarious. You also are helping others to see Cofty's point, so thanks!
