The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • stavro
    stavro

    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.

    You wouldn't be assaulting the animal, in the same way that someone who donates blood is not assaulted during the process. The scriptural fact, is that blood had no real value in the eyes of God until a life was taken. It was only then you could present it to God and it was only then he would look upon it as being acceptable.

    (Leviticus 17:11) For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it.

    To take this one step further the blood of slaughtered animals was not even sacred enough to atone permanently for sins.
    1 peter 1:18-19  For you know that it was not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, that you were set free from your futile way of life handed down to you by your forefathers. 19 But it was with precious blood, like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, that of Christ
    It required a level of sacredness that only the blood of Jesus could potentially attain to. But Jesus still had to die before God would accept his blood as being valuable enough to pay the price required to atone for sins.
    It is only through the pouring out of the life blood, resulting in the death of the animal or individual, that God views as having sacred sacrificial value. You just simply couldn't offer blood up without a life having fist been taken. This also explains why eating the blood of an un-slaughtered animal found dead only resulted in ceremonial uncleanness rather than stoning to death. It also explains why you could drink the symbolic blood of Jesus before his death without breaking any laws.

    (Matthew 26:27, 28) And taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, saying: Drink out of it, all of you,  for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    Fish: "you are no authority here."

    And who the hell is an authority on the thoughts and will of the silence, invisible thing on a throne in the sky. If God really wanted to communicate his will in a clear matter, he wouldn't need humans. He created the universe; I guess to utter a clear simple sentence about refusal of blood transfusion is much easier than building galaxies. But he ain't doing anything. Likely, he doesn't give a shit one way or the other.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that Fish's posts are getting more and more disjointed and incomprehensible?

    'Cause there are times I have trouble just figuring out what point he's trying to make...

  • Nathan Natas
  • TheWonderofYou
    TheWonderofYou
    stavro.
    ... "But Jesus still had to die before God would accept his blood "...

    Did all the animals and Jesus really have to die in order to get to the gem - the blood of dying and slaughtered (not dead) bodies?

    Had blood of dying+slaughtered bodies actually to be collected to serve in an act of divine vicarious punishment or was it in an act of korban (coming closer to god)?

    Was the death of Jesus body itself actually meaningless and worthless and was it only the fresh pouring out uncovered blood of his dying (slaughtered) body [not yet dead but in the moment of slaughter] which saves and redeems ?

    Was it the blood after the occured death of Jesus that redeems or was it the fresh pouring out blood in the moment of Jesus slaughter death (like at slaughter of animals)?

    Or doesnt "blood" stand after all for "life" or "value of life" or yet better doesnt blood mean ourself or Jesus whole person, the value and worth of our/his person standing in front of the altar?

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    Cause there are times I have trouble just figuring out what point he's trying to make... Vid

    There is a difference between what the Bible says and what cofty says the Bible says.

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    It's odd... none of the posts I've made in this thread show up in my history, nor does this thread show up in cofty's history -- does cofty has (grammaticalerror to make cogty comfy) more than one account?

    anyway, BOO!

    Cofty selected the subject line,

    The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

    Shouldn't that be

    The Watchtower am Right About Blood...?

    Respectfully,

    - The Obsever

  • cofty
    cofty

    You have made the same post three times - yes all three did show up on thread.

    I didn't understand it the first time and repeating twice hasn't helped any.

    I have never had more than one account on this forum.

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    I am very pleased to announce that I WAS WRONG in my earlier posts about my mssgs in this thread not showing up in my mssg history.

    It turns out that there are three "tabs" available on your mssg history page.

    You will see:

    Topics Posted on by Uno Hoo

    Started Updated Replies


    I had been using the "started" tab as my default listing mode. When I switched to the "updated" tab, the list of mssgs was re-sorted to reflect my most recent replies.

    Problem solved!

    Thanks cofty. Were it not for your poor grammar (and grampa) I might never have experienced this epiphany.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Really?

    You commented three times in a thread about a life-and-death issue to complain that you think there might be a grammar error.

    Shouldn't that be - The Watchtower am Right About Blood...?

    No it shouldn't. Obviously.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit