"New light" and BLOOD ...

by EdenOne 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EdenOne

  I just had a flash in my head.

  In the WT 07/2013, the "new light" is basically saying that there was no appointment of a Faithful and Discrete Slave in the Christian era until 1919. If this is true, then no "spiritual food at the proper time" was served after Jesus' resurrection, for over 1886 years. That means that the decree of the "apostles and older men" in Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15:24-29, isn't "food at the proper time", and shouldn't be mandatory for Christians.

  This includes the order to "abstain from blood". Since Jesus abolished the old Covenant Law, and he himself never said a word about the consumption of blood, what follows is that we are only under the obligation to obey what God told Noah: You can't eat meat from a slain animal with the blood on it.

  Actually, thinking about it, the whole NT with the exception of the four synoptic Gospels is invalidated by this order of ideas... This makes books like "The Finished Mystery" legit food and the espitole of Paul to the Romans an apostasy. .... What a concept.

  Eden
• 

  Comatose

  Brilliant.
• 

  baltar447

  Idk, doesn't that run the risk on contradicting "scripture"?
• 

  Comatose

  Well they base the GB off the old Supposed GB of the first century. Would they say the old GB was anointed and slave? Or does it sayspefically that no slave until 1919?
• 

  EdenOne

  The article is clear that no slave was appointed to dispense spiritual "food at the proper time" until 1919.

  What they suggest is that the apostles's authority given to them directly by Jesus was unquestionable, therefore, the "no slave in the first century" is a non-issue.

  However, this would allow us to discard the book of James, since he wasn't one of the 12 apostles.

  What a can of worms.

  Eden
• 

  Comatose

  Great point. Good thinking. :) Too bad it would not discard Jude. He quotes from the book of Enoch and references Tartarus.
• 

  EdenOne

  "Tartarus" is found in 2 Peter 2:4, rather than in Jude. Although Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch aplenty.

  Eden
• 

  Comatose

  Ah. Oops. :)
• 

  Cold Steel

  I have no problem with the restriction of eating blood. I find it repulsive and can't even bring myself to eat one of those "blood oranges." So forget the blood pudding and other...ummm...delights. As for blood transfusions, the present policy of the JW Governing Board is just unbelievable. It's like saying, no graven images? Fine, throw away all your statues and photo albums! The Amish think photos are prideful and call attention from the Lord. And some African tribesmen think photos can steal the soul.

  But how do they change the policy without looking like buffoons? You can't. Your only choice is to just continue the doctrine or leaving it up to the members to decide.

  BTW, what is the policy on using your OWN blood in surgery? You know, giving blood before an operation, having it frozen or preserved and then used months later when you have surgery. Do they say it's like drinking your own blood?

  When they talk about "light," do they mean that communication is coming from God? Do they believe it's possible to interpret such light in an incorrect manner? (I still remember all that horrible fish they served in my high school cafeteria because Catholics had this thing about eating meat on Fridays. Then, years later, the Pope says, "Never mind...."
• 

  leaving_quietly

  Idk, doesn't that run the risk on contradicting "scripture"?

  The point is well-taken. However, consider this:

  Acts, written by Luke, wasn't completed until 61 C.E. (according to WTS). 1 Tim (where we find the "all scripture is inspired..." verse) was completed sometime between 61 and 61 C.E. Thus, it is unlikely that Acts was considered "scripture" by Paul. What we today consider "scripture" wasn't even put together as such until a few hundred years later.

  http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/7/ (I have no idea how accurate this is, but hopefully you get my point.)