Watchtower – Wrong about Noah and blood

by Marvin Shilmer 22 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  metatron

  Guys, guys, guys............

  Acts 15 is NOT about Noah! This 'Noah' idea is superficially sensible UNTIL you start looking at it carefully.

  James and the Other Holy Dudes had a big mess on their hands, with Jewish Christians making demands about teaching the Law to Gentiles and Paul saying otherwise.

  but James thought up a solution that was absolutely brilliant !!!

  James made a summarized quote from Leviticus 17 - 18 and the Jewish Christians had to shut up because of what he said.

  You see, James was quoting a part of the Law that dealt with the responsibilities of "Alien Residents" - who lived amidst "the sons of Israel".

  His argument was clear: 'We have guidance from the Law on what 'alien residents' are supposed to do - avoid eating blood, things strangled, idolatry and "fornication" - defined as all the sexual stuff that you can't do like incest and homosexuality and whatnot.

  So, the Gentile Christians were 'in the midst of Israel', in effect and James was saying, 'this is what they are required to do according to the Law for Alien residents".

  This is why James concluded by saying (vs 21) "For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath."

  Now, do you get it? It's not about Noah. It's all about what Moses said about the 'alien resident in the midst of Israel". That's how (and why) he fixed the whole dispute about the Law.

  metatron
• 

  jwfacts

  Well spotted MS, and I like that you have a letter from the Watchtower admitting their lies.
• 

  TD

  Now, do you get it? It's not about Noah. It's all about what Moses said about the 'alien resident in the midst of Israel". That's how (and why) he fixed the whole dispute about the Law.

  That idea is pretty clear the next time its mentioned:

  “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
• 

  Dogpatch

  We knew the WT was going to drop DFing for taking blood against all thye guffaws, so I did what was Dogpatch's specialty and spent $2000 so far gearing up for a whole new approach to this, on AJWRB.ORG., and now they apparently have in the new elder's manual.

  That's why we changed the whole direction of AJWRB.ORG a few months ago, to use this to our advantage. Now in the new elders book they even admit it. So AJWRB.ORG was first site to publicly come out and say they were going to drop it. You almost have to have worked at Bethel to see it coming. Most JWs have no idea how the big house is run.

  Randy Watters
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Randy,

  What is new about Watchtower’s current policy on JWs who accept blood compared to the procedural policy shift made in April 2000 and announced in June of 2000?

  I don’t see any difference at all.

  Marvin

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  Terry

  When is a Gentile not a Gentile?

  Under the Law when he is circumcized and comes under the law.

  That is Moses.

  When is a Jew not a Jew? When Paul gets ahold of him.

  Suddenly Gentiles are Jews. Suddenly promises made to Jews are really promises made to the UNcircumcised Gentiles.

  Who wouldn't be upset?

  What actual concrete proof did Paul offer the (excuse me while I laugh) Governing Body in Jerusalem that God had CHANGED anything?

  It was Peter's claim of a "vision" "Stop calling unclean...."

  That is to say: our version of events that took place back then is written to explain it that way.

  Imagine trying to get people to change thousands of years of religious Law by saying "I had a vision" and the ridiculous nature of the claim becomes apparent.

  Whose word do we have and what proof do we have that Paul's teaching was not bootstrapped or that Peter had a "vision" rather than this being a fanciful story--a deus ex machina--to pave the way for Christianity in Gentile hands by divine means?

  None.

  We've always accepted it and so, it MUST be true. Right?

  Imagine if our history books told us "One day General Grant was summoned to Confederate headquarters to explain why slavery must be abolished and Southern states now had to treat slaves as fully human. Grant explained and then General Robert E. Lee reported he had had a dream the night before and God told him it was so. Then, they all lived happily ever after."
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  metatron writes:

  “Now, do you get it? It's not about Noah. It's all about what Moses said about the 'alien resident in the midst of Israel". That's how (and why) he fixed the whole dispute about the Law.”

  Just to be clear for sake of silent readers, my article is not about getting or not getting what the Bible says of the Apostolic Decree. It is about what Watchtower teaches, and in particular what it teaches about the Apostolic Decree in relation to the Noachian Decree and transfusion of donor blood.

  Watchtower teaches that, in respect to blood, the Apostolic Decree is not an imposing on Gentile Christians a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, was a confirming of the Noachian Decree. As it turns out, nothing whatsoever about the Noachian Decree prohibits medicinal transfusion of donor blood.

  Aside from Watchtower theology, folks have multiple ideas of what the Apostolic Decree represents and why it was determined according to the record. The one common denominator of these various beliefs is that at no time does the Apostolic Decree represent in any way whatsoever a prohibition against donating or accepting blood for transfusion to save human life.

  My aim is to help stop the needless suffering. Otherwise it does not matter to me what folks want to believe. In this I think we agree.

  Thanks for helping further the subject by sharing as you have.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  wobble

  Well done again Marvin, I do admire your tenacity and integrity in sticking to your life saving work.

  It is typical of them that the WT has to try to give their wacky interpretation of the decree in Acts some gravitas by bringing in a totally fictional character - Noah.

  If anybody reads the Acts account in full, with a modicum of knowledge of how to read the Bible, and with an open mind, he or she could never conclude that there was any element of medical usage of blood touched on here, even as the WT loves to say "in principle" or "by extension".

  It is time they were stopped from promulgating their murderous teaching, it is the 21st century !

  I hope your efforts bear much fruit, Marvin.
• 

  TD

  As an accompaniment to Marvin's article, it could also be pointed out that even in the context of the Law, (Long after Noah) Watchtower statements regarding pouring blood out are still a serious distortion of Kashrut.

  Wild animals don't let you walk up to them and slit their throats in the Kosher manner. Methods for killing a wild animal at a distance. (An arrow, a spear or even a bullet) do not sufficiently bleed the carcass. Under the Law, the very first thing a hunter would do after he's killed an animal is to slit its throat and bleed it. (Leviticus 17; Deuteronomy 12, 15)

  Blood must be removed from the body by being poured out.

  Watchtower takes this simple requirement and rewords it to subtely change the meaning:

  "...his law to Israel required that blood removed from a creature be 'poured out' on the ground.' (The Watchtower June 15, 2004 p. 30)

  But there's a big difference between the idea that blood must be removed by being poured out versus the idea that blood must be poured out after its removed.

  There's a big difference between the idea that blood must be poured out because you intend to eat the animal it's in versus the idea that blood must be poured out because you have removed it.

  This distortion of Kashrut separates the removal and the pouring out into two distinct steps and implies at least a transitory storage of blood. But as you can see, the whole idea is contradicted even in Watchtower illustrations:

  

  The pouring out was the means of removal, not a separate act subsequent to it. The animal carcass is the recipient of action inasmuch as it is the receptacle from which the blood was poured. Blood itself is not the recipient of action and is in fact, not being 'used' or 'handled' in any way whatsoever.

  The only purpose this serves is to change a directive on how to handle an animal carcass into a directive on how to handle blood. It's a transparent and sophomoric attempt to claim that butchering an animal is relevant to transfusion medicine.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  TD,

  Thanks for sharing your (always!) incisive comments.

  Where did you get that image from? I’d like to review it alongside associated text.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com