by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
You demand answers of everyone else but never put your own views out there. Are you hiding something?
dub, I can ask. No one is required to answer. This is not a court room.
Lets say you are walking down the street and stopped by a cop and he tells you, lets go down to the precinct, we want to ask you some questions. What should you do?
Oh good grief, the deflecting and diving again. So you ascribe to the JW beliefs. You CHOOSE to give weight to their commentary despite other commentary to the contrary. You have every right to CHOOSE to ascribe to theirs, just own it like man instead of cowering like a little baby. You hold to the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. There you go, not too hard there was it?
Once we know that, we know that there is no since in addressing you. You are choosing to ignore commentary that casts aspersions on the one that you hold so dear..................for 13 long years.
Do you hold fast to the WT view of apostates and avoiding them at all costs, or just pick and choose their views based on importance to you personally, like choosing to defend their stance on blood or to defend their stance on protecting children from pedophiles while ignoring that one?
dub, I told you. If you want to make a statement or ask a question about the topic, I may decide to respond to you -if I wish. But I am not required to. If you dont like that, too bad for you. Do you have a view you wish to express about the Topic?
Like you said, this isn't a court of law, I can ask, but you don't have to answer. It sure says a lot though.
Good day Mr. Fishy. Enjoy your meeting Sunday.
Cofty - "...You are either the least intelligent person in the forum or you are deeply dishonest."
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 
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.
Fisherman as the watchtower is the authority you claim jw's must listen to, then they should listen to the following.
"He further suggested writing to them merely that they abstain from pollutions of idols, i.e., from meats offered to idols (verse 29), and from things strangled and from blood - as by eating such things they might become stumbling blocks to their Jewish brethren (See 1 Cor. 8:4-13)- and from fornication. ... It will be noticed that nothing is said about keeping the Ten Commandments, nor any part of the Jewish law. It was evidently taken for granted that having received the spirit of Christ the new law of love would be a general regulation for them. The things mentioned were merely to guard against stumbling themselves or becoming-stumbling blocks to others." Watch Tower 1892 Nov 15 pp.350-351
This is the conclusion they claim jws much reach! or is this also trash?
On the other hand, wt is an authority to jw and their commentary matters, so does Rashi, Sforno, Rambam, Nachimedes.
You see here is the difference. God is the authority for Christians and it is his viewpoint that matters. As Russel pointed out it was through the law of love that all other laws were to be interpreted. It is only through the eyes of love that God can be understood.
(John 4:7) Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born from God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love has not come to know God, because God is love
(Galatians 5:14) For the entire Law has been fulfilled in one commandment, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”
(1 John 3:16) By this we have come to know love, because that one surrendered his life for us, and we are under obligation to surrender our lives for our brothers.Now look! a man versed in the Law stood up to test him and said: “Teacher, what do I need to do to inherit everlasting life?” 26 He said to him: “What is written in the Law? How do you read?” 27 In answer he said: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole strength and with your whole mind’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’” 28 He said to him: “You answered correctly; keep doing this and you will get life.”
"Blood was sacred under The Law." - "Blood is not intrinsically sacred; it is only sacred insofar as it represents a life that has been taken."
Although I came often to similar ideas, and although i would like that this is a means of escape for a JW to accept blood transfusion, doesnt it sound very unlikely and illogical that a Jew would ever say that.
Would a Jew really say "animal blood is sacred, says the law" [Leviticus 17 is part of the laws of holniness] and would he explain this sacredness further as follows "sacredness means that blood is only sacred if I kill an animal, cause if I kill the animal it represents only then the life of the animal taken".
I think (as far as I know the matter) that something doesnt meat up to the desired conclusion.
I dont know what yet exactly, however I think that it is not so easy to say, that blood is only then sacred when it is used as a means for the offering and only then bears the "quality as offering" in it, in the moment of death.
----
I have read that the rabbis understood blood as the most living or spiritual part of human physical existence. For the rabbis it came the closest to the idea of soul or life itself. Blood was for a jew a sign of life.
In jewish thinking the Lord turned flesh and blood into a nephesh chayyah, a living being. Blood was the seat of life. So in hebrew language and notion the blood had the even closest connection to the divine, or spiritual part of men, its nephesh, the life. It was seen as intermediary between a spiritual reality and physical reality, the bones, the sinews and flesh. Because that was in jewish understanding the nature of the blood, therefore blood was seen as that part of the human body to which the soul, the life attaches itself to.
Therefore, if blood was seen as seat of life the "sacredness of blood" meant for a Jew supposedly much more than a "only sacred insofar as it represents a life that has been taken".
Leviticus 17-26 is called the law of holiness. The Law of Holiness was a milestone in the Israelite history of law. The speciality of this laws was that obidience to the law was bound to the basic quality of holiness. The understanding blood was part of this Law of Holiness.
The Tora was the holy scripture of Jews for Jesus and the original church. It was the only bible to which they could refer. Although christians held tight to the first testament writings they were subordinated to the work of the holy spirit.
From the apostolic council onwards for christians was valid what the holy spirit declared as "clean". What the spirit declared as clean the church should not declare as unclean, even appeling to the holy scriptures. (Acts 10, Peters dream)
Therefore for Christians the Israelite Law of Holiness, e.g. the rules for ritual and cultic purity and as well the interpretation of the deeper meaning of blood, is only relative for christians, it was a law for Israel, and are to be understood under the circumstances of the work of the holy spirit.
The jewish background and understanding of blood as seat of life and mediator between the divine and the flesh is for christans not binding. These ideas and notions were only relevant in connection with the Law of Holiness and were relevant for jewish-christians.
For other christians and other nations the jewish rabbis have been always discussing ethic rules they should follow to be acceptable for god. In the traditional noachidic laws contains 6 bans and 1 rule (this a theoratical draft but not a concrete Halakha) forbidden was only to eat parts of living animal, to avoid a brutal killing
Bans
Do not deny God
Do not blaspheme God.
Do not murder. (spilling of blood)
Do not engage in illicit sexual relations.
Do not steal.
Do not eat from a live animal.
Rule:
Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to said laws.
Cofty selected the subject line,
Shouldn't that be
Respectfully,
- The Obsever
Behind the ethical message of blood in the jewish notion and in the law of holiness in Leviticus we have the ancient, archaic idea that blood is seat of the human soul or life force.
The core ethical message of blood was that blood was the essence of life, its vitality and energy, which has to be devoted to serving as offering (korban) under the altar to God (Hashem as they call God) and its consequence that under this leading sign the best of human life, its vitality and energy, should be also devoted in humilty into the right direction, namely to god (life belongs only under the altar, namely as offering for god).
This ethical core thought is an interesting though and acceptable moral idea per se. Also because blood is not seen under the altar as "sacrifice", "ransom", or "payment for guilts" although it might have been used in such circumstances, but only as "offering"/"gift". Therefore the human blood of Jesus could in jewish notion never pay for adamic sins in a real "ransom" scenario, but only serve as "offering" at most. Paul must have been used the word "ransom" as metaphor i think.
This ethical core thought that blood is lifeforce could however lead to the conclusion that in jewish eyes "blood was" always "sacred" and not only in the moment of killing an animal.
These notions developped on the basis of the jewish shy from contact with blood. Blood was for the Israelites not merely used as a methaphor or symbol of life but they had ...brrrr.... great shy of contacting it. This is the archaic story behind blood with the blood rites uuuuh and menstruation blood uuuuuhhhh, today we know that not everything what the old folks spoke is to hold and search for a double meaning, deeper sense, namely also for the idea that life or lifeforce or the divine principle is actually seated in the blood, a lifeforce which is of divine origin and therefore belonged to God.
Today the JW are confused and trouble their head about this old idea and make of it a STARK NONSENSE.
