The Watchtower are Right About Blood... (page 51)

Fisherman

First of all, relax have a cup of tea. You keep going on a rant with me. You are only an advocate here, not an authority, and not an arbitrator. Your commentary is trash because it is only your opinion; in this sense it is trash because it does not establish anything at all except how you see things. On the other hand, wt is an authority to jw and their commentary matters, so does Rashi, Sforno, Rambam, Nachimedes. Ebn Ezra- and other to Jews. You commentary is trash - but it is your opinion and you are entitled to it; you are no authority here.

Why is there a difference if the blood is sacred in the way JWs believe it to be?

Why is there a difference between the blood poured out from a slaughtered animal and the blood eaten with the flesh from such animal (Scripture and verse please)

I want to point out to you that your premise is that: "Blood .. sacred... insofar.." The burden of proof is yours not mine. You can believe your conclusions but I dont buy them. I have pointed out to you that all that you have shown in your argument is that blood from a creature that has not been slaughtered for food is different than that of animal slaughtered for food, and therefore SHOULD BE trash because you say so in your premise.

According to this verse an Israelite farmer could have brought gallons of blood drained from live animals to the altar to atone for his sins.

Jewish law forbade assaulting an animal for food without slaughtering it. On this basis alone it was forbidden. It would be like tearing off a limb from a live animal and offering it to God or eating it.

So lets get to the point of all this. You argue that blood from live animals and humans should be trash because no life was taken -says you.

Or does God forbid pumping gallons of blood into your body because blood is sacred to God and because God forbids blood to be eaten?

How do you you know? Ask cofty?!!

dubstepped

Fishy - You commentary is trash - but it is your opinion and you are entitled to it; you are no authority here.

How can you say this? Are you an authority?

Fishy - wt is an authority to jw and their commentary matters?

So then, is that the commentary that you choose to rest upon?

Fisherman

Eating an unbled animal found dead was not a sin so this verse has no relevance.

Yes it does. Deu14:21

discussed this verse at length. You ignored my answer and now you pretend I haven't answered it. This is why I call you a coward and a liar.

I did not and posting your trash is no licence to offend me and other posters that disagree with you.

This verse is about an animal torn by wild beasts. It was bled. It has no relevance to our conversation.

It does. It commands Israel to be Holy. Eating dead animals and torn ones are put in the same category and both forbidden to eat.

I have never attempted to show that blood is not sacred to god. I have consistently said the exact opposite.

"...insofar...." You play both sides

Fisherman

How can you say this? Are you an authority

Can you show that cofty is more than an advocate?

So then, is that the commentary that you choose to rest upon?

You single out wt because you are sore but in my post I referenced other commentators. But wt is an "authority" to jw. Whether or not you or I view them as such does not change that fact.

Fisherman

dub, you can post your views on the subject. I am not going to make fun of what you say.

dubstepped

Fishy - You single out wt because you are sore...

This is your commentary? Source? Oh, that's right, I'm the source of my own post. I single out WT because:

1. You are defending a stance on blood that is directly reflective of the WT view.

2. You have defended WT in many other views on here.

3. Oh, I don't know, maybe look at the title of this site.

Sherlock would be proud of your skills of deduction.

As I stated previously, I agree with the views expressed in this thread by Cofty and others. Those views have been rehashed enough on here as you can't seem to grasp them. You are the lone dissenter.

So again I ask you, is the JW commentary the one that you choose to rest upon?

Fisherman

So again I ask you, is the JW commentary the one that you choose to rest upon?

That has no relevance to the topic. But if you want to know. I can PM you

Fisherman

dub, why do ypu agree with all the views here?

dubstepped

Everyone else shows their cards here fishy. You are the only one that keeps everything hidden. You've done it on other topics regarding blood where I asked you directly if you would take a transfusion and you refused to answer. You did it on another thread about relationships when asked about your relationship status. Now you do so here as well. You demand answers of everyone else but never put your own views out there. Are you hiding something?

So again I ask you, is the JW commentary the one that you choose to rest on?

Your question about why I agree with the views here is stupid. I agree because of the reasoning and scriptures presented and because I can think for myself and see the connections.

So again I ask you (two times in one post this time), is the JW commentary the one that you choose to rest on?

Fisherman

1. You are defending a stance on blood that is directly reflective of the WT view.

I have not been convinced otherwise. My most enjoyable dialogues have been with TD and with Marvin Shilmer and with others too.

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

Share this