How the blood doctrine developed - one of the best descriptions I've seen...

by EndofMysteries 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    My feelings toward this thread are so mixed. I had no idea how recent the JW antiblood doctrine is. According to this thread, it was recent when I was very young, which makes it hard for me to believe so many would be willing to die for the belief. Nevertheless, cults don't encourage rational thinking but obedience. The basic premises concerning both Christinianity are wrong, objectively. Sometimes the rampant antiSemitism present on this forum discourges me. God frequently or always is teaching Jews this lesson or that lesson bc they are so stupid or thick. Jews don't agree! Most Christians don't agree!

    The God of the NT is markedly different from that of Judaism. This is clear from a standard reference book or even a casual conversation with almost any person with a little bit of Jewish education. All one can is this is one strand of thought wtihin Christianity. It does not stand for mainstream belief as defined by Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox churches, among others. The author own peculair brand of Chrstianity is the only A-OK one. This is repulvsive to me. If you want to know what Jews believe, a Christian minister may not know best. I say go to the source. There are standard references on Judaism, such as Encyclopedia Judaica, and there are scads of actual Jews with some Hebrew School knowledge.

    On the other hand, why does it bother me so much? Antisemitism is ugly. If I did not live in my geographical area, I might believe the same way. The only reason I do not is that I attended school with many Jewish students. New York City has a large Jewish presence. In order to understand how Jews and Christians interacted at school, I was forced to learn basics about Judaism. Christ is not the answer, in their view. The idea of God made man is abhorent in their eyes. God is sacred. He is what is not human. The Witness understanding, which is so barely Jesus at all, is different from Jewish belief. All this was news to me when I attended college. We share some of the same sacred scriptures but the interpretations and values are markedly different. Psalm 23 is a good example. Jews do not see Jesus announced in the Old Testament. They already have God. Jews are not waiting for God the way Christians often believe. Such beliefs are not Christian projections backwards in time.

    I've spent a lifetime discussing these matters with friends and scholars. Christians don't "get" Judaism and Jews don't seem to "get" basic Christian belief--even when studied. After decades of sometimes awkward questions and conversations, I don't fully "get" it. I do know that Judaism is not a junior version of Christianity. Christianity can stand on its own merits or fall. Some Christians must see fulfillment and God ordained laws every place. There are other views. Perhaps this is all I wanted to say. There are other views.

    There is much diversity in Jewish belief. In fact, as an observer, I often note that all denominations of Christians seem to get along together very well compared to the debates I overhear. When I want to know Jewish doctrine, I check several sources and even telephone a professor or two. Part of me strongly believes that if Christians understood Judaism more, we could understand all those radical sayings of Jesus, particularly in Mark, that don't quite make sense.

    I also did not mean to draw attention to this particular thread which taught me much about the blood doctrine by posting this here. It was convenient. What you heard at KH about Judaism is likely not true. There is nuance and variety. It is a shame that the Bible was ever canonized b/c we could appreciate the diversity of belief within Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam better if we had all the sources and valued them equally as historians would. God cannot be fully contained in a single Bible. The Bible is a lare book but compared to what most believers believe is the immensity and totality of God, the Bible is merely a pittance. When Charlton Heston or an actor playing Jesus in a good Jesus film personally tells me so, perhaps I will believe laws. Culture evolves. These books are merely snapshots in time that is passing. There was a before and there will be an aftermath.

  • nonjwspouse
    nonjwspouse

    I have to say here, the one Jewish boy in my sons Catholic School class was not subjected to any antisemitism. He was warmly welcomed and respected

  • adamah
    adamah

    TD, you DO realize the irony in your indignant protest over my usage of the word "Pharisaical", right? No?

    Can't you see it, just a teensie-weensie bit?

    Adam said- You're not creating a false equivalency here, claiming the term 'Phariasical' is offensive, but then claiming terms like 'Pharisaic' or 'Pharisaism' (which you use) is NOT?

    TD said- Not at all.

    Let me rephrase that in the form of a statement: you ARE creating a false equivalency.

    TD said- There is a difference in language between nouns and the adjectives that spring from them. There is a difference between naming various races, ethnicities and religions in the nominative case and attributing attitudes and characteristics to them. The two adjectival forms, (i.e. Pharisaical, Pharisaic) are pejoratives in modern English when they describe anything other than the existence of a Jewish group by that name.

    And thank you for bringing up the fact that I used the adjective 'Pharaisaic' precisely TO refer to the beliefs (noun) of the Pharisees, only one (of a dozen) Jewish sects in the 1st Cent CE. Note, too, that the dictionary makes a distinction between the word when used with an upper-case 'P' vs a lower case 'p' which ALSO would support your claim if it had any validity to it, since the use as a pejorative refers to the 2nd definition.

    eg, HERE'S an example of a usage which might support your rant:

    "The pharisaic and overly-complicated tax code of the IRS drives many tax-payers to throw up their hands in frustration, and file a short form instead."

    See the difference? That would be a questionable usage, using the word to describe something OTHER than the actual beliefs of the Pharisees.

    TD said- Your statement below is not simply an oversimplification; it is both incorrect and offensive. --Incorrect because abrogation and suspension of the Sabbath predate Jesus of the Bible considerably and offensive because the usage of pharisaical is most clear when it describes an inflexible, heartless policy. --All the more so when that attitude it is attributed to all of Judaism.

    Jesus actually had the effect of changing Judaism's Pharasical policies after his death, when Judaism finally admitted that saving a life was a valid reason to violate Sabbath.

    (Re-read my explanation above, noting the upper case; you accused me of using a lower-case 'p', which is not the case, yuk-yuk.)

    Surely you understand how one early Jewish sect did not constitute the whole of Judaism? Shifting away from the policies of one sect wouldn't effect ALL of Judaism, right? You are aware that the Pharisees weren't the ONLY sect compromising Judaism in say, 40 CE, and you are aware that the Pharisees prevailed in the end, becoming rabbinical Judaism that we largely see today?

    PS you're seemingly unaware that standard English usage requires that when a noun that ends in a vowel is used to create an adjective, the vowel is dropped, and the suffix '-aic' is added, eg

    alcaic, algebraic, alhambraic, altaic, antemosaic, apogaic, aramaic, archaic, barbaic, chaldaic, choleraic, cyrenaic, deltaic, eddaic, fulmiaic, hebraic, judaic, laic, lamaic, mesaraic, meseraic, mosaic, omphalomesaraic, paradisaic, pharisaic, photovoltaic, premosaic, prosaic, ptolemaic, romaic, sadducaic, saic, sinaic, sodaic, spondaic, stanzaic, stylagalmaic, tesseraic, thebaic, thermovoltaic, trochaic, voltaic, zebraic,

    If no vowel is found at the end of the word, the suffix '-ic' is used, eg, atomic, rabbinic, Talmudic, etc.

    Hopefully you won't find offense when someone uses any of these terms: Judaic, Hebraic, Mosaic, Sadducaic, Pharasaic, Sinaic? Are we not supposed to refer to Talmudic, Rabbinic, Messianic, etc?

    I hope not, since speakers of the Aramaic language don't get their noses bent out of shape at the mere mention of their language, no more than Italians take offense when Ptolemy is possibly insulted by referring to 'Ptolemaic', or fans of Alessandro Volta are offended whenever someone mentions 'voltaic'.

    That would be, uh, quite prosaic, if not downright pharasaic, don't you think?

    Adam

  • TD
    TD
    Surely you understand how one early Jewish sect did not constitute the whole of Judaism? Shifting away from the policies of one sect wouldn't effect ALL of Judaism, right? You are aware that the Pharisees weren't the ONLY sect compromising Judaism in say, 40 CE?

    Surely I do. It is doubtful if the Pharisees ever numbered more than 10,000 at any point in the 1st century. With that in mind, I would like to refocus your attention on your statement:

    Jesus actually had the effect of changing Judaism's Pharasical policies after his death, when Judaism finally admitted that saving a life was a valid reason to violate Sabbath.

    When exactly did Judaism "finally admit" that saving a life was a valid reason to "violate" the Sabbath?

    What exactly was the "Pharisaical policy" that prevented it prior to the Jesus character? If that "policy" was idiosyncratic to just the Pharisees, how would you reconcile that assertion with your admonition above that they did not constitute the whole of Judaism? Conversely, if that "policy" was not a Pharisee invention, then what exactly did you have in mind with the term, "Pharisaical?"

    PS you're seemingly unaware that standard English usage requires that when a noun that ends in a vowel is used to create an adjective, the suffix '-aic' is added,

    Okay. Let's forget noun/adj. combinations like, "Violence" and "Violent"; "Ease" and "Easy"; "Romance" and "Romantic"; etc. How exactly does this help your case?

  • adamah
    adamah

    TD, you accused me of a false equivalency, saying use of pharasiac was as offensive as saying 'kike': You are wrong. I am offended, and demand an apology for the unjust accusation.

    Like I said, Christians (and note the '-ian' suffix, which is also another example of taking a proper noun (Christ, i.e. Greek word for messiah) and using it to referring to those who follow Christ; it's NOT automatically evidence of it's becoming a pejorative) believe in the NT account. NOT historical reality, and not what Jopsephus or various midrashim reveal, etc, but only what JWs believe, which is based primarily on the accounts in the NT gospels.

    Aside from that, please create a spin-off thread so as to not hijack EOM's topic to take it down a rat-hole, since this is WAYYYY OT and simply adding clutter/noise to the topic of the evolution of the JW blood doctrine.

    Adam

  • TD
    TD

    Adam,

    In regard to opening a new thread: I've attempted as politely as I could to explain how and why lingering JWisms are offensive here:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/205970/1/What-the-law-says#.Ung-FScUaFw

    and more specifically here:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/149881/1/Jesus-Pharisees-and-Jehovahs-Witnesses#.Ung_GicUaFw

    I appreciate that it is bad etiquette to hijack a thread, and apologize to EOM, but with all due respect to EOM and others, the article is simply a rehash of research that was done nearly 20 years ago by myself and others.

    Perhaps that, more than anything is an indication that it's time to move on.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit