Posts by Fisherman

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

Apologies, Fisherman. I did not realize that was necessary. Jehovah's Witnesses (via church literature) interpret the Torah's requirements on blood in the context of sacrifice; interpret sacrifice in the context of atonement; interpret atonement under the context of Messianic prophecy; interpret Messianic prophecy in the context of Jesus' sacrifice; interpret Jesus sacrifice in the context of the Ransom. Based on that concatenation it is inferred that any use of blood not specifically set forth elsewhere in the Torah should be understood as forbidden and an act of disrespect towards the Ransom.

TD, your post above only represents your view about WT teachings. Your view about WT teachings, however,does not truly represent WT teachings and neither does your view posted above establish that what you feel about WT teachings is actually the case. Take for example your statement about WT interpretation of sacrifice. Here is what the Insight Book says about sacrifice not in the context of atonement:

*** it-2 p. 525 Offerings ***
From early times men have presented offerings to God. In the first recorded instance, Adam’s oldest son Cain presented some fruits of the ground, and Adam’s younger son Abel, the firstlings of his flock. Evidently the attitudes and motives of the two brothers were different, for God approved Abel’s offering but looked with disfavor on Cain’s.
*** it-2 p. 525 Offerings ***
In Patriarchal Society. The family head Noah, on coming out of the ark, offered a thanksgiving sacrifice to Jehovah that was “restful” (soothing, tranquilizing), after which Jehovah made the “rainbow” covenant with Noah and his offspring

*** it-2 p. 526 Offerings ***
Communion offerings (or peace offerings). Communion offerings acceptable to Jehovah denoted peace with him. The worshiper and his household partook (in the courtyard of the tabernacle; according to tradition, booths were set up around the inside of the curtain surrounding the courtyard; in the temple, dining rooms were provided). The officiating priest received a portion

The fact that it is impossible to state a law applicable to every conceivable situation is indeed a limitation of language.

Secular law yes- man is the judge. Divine law no because God is the judge, and Jehovah was integrated into the Torah, and God communicated with Israel: The patriarchs, the judges, the kings, the neviim, the priests (but not the Rabbis.) What Jesus pointed out was that the jewish clergy of his day was wicked, the heart, the motive, the intention, and not that the academics of the law was the case.. His reasoning on the the Sabbath was mostly if not all in his own defense from those who were looking for wicked reasons to convict him. The wt points out that pure worship became contaminated with heathen philosophy. With Israel it was not a problem with the limit of language: Is there no God in Israel-sort of speak!

acknowledge that and if I've been less than forthright about it, I apologize. I stated early on in this thread that one's starting assumptions about the purpose of any given law will affect their interpretation.

I understand your reasoning.

If an equivalency between consumption and transfusion cannot be established,....

A talking horse is needed to unlimit language. Academically speaking, life must be preserved to the extent that people should also have the right decide for themselves.

The preservation of the lives of the Jews from the coffin depends upon Caesar up to this day and not upon salvation from Jehovah. JW theology is different, WT position is not to break God's Laws (given any established law) and trust God for survival-live or die.

95

slimboyfat joins the Mormons!

by slimboyfat in

i know that some people on the board have experience of being mormons, so i would be interested in your feedback.

at church this afternoon it was an uncanny experience.

in the past i've read a lot about mormons, so i thought i was prepared in general for what it would be like.

Fisherman

SBF

"If a man smiles all of the time, he is probably selling something that does not work". -George Carlin

Do Mormons smile a lot?

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

My intent on this thread has simply been to illustrate the impropriety of lifting one law out of an entire body of law and interpreting it outside of the framework in which it was given.

It appears to me that in-spite of you stating your intentions as stated above, your posts on this thread do not illustrate that the The OT laws on blood (substance of this thread), or on idolatry, etc. are integrated with the other framework of laws that were given to Israel at Sinai (or any other framework of laws that you might be referring to) and therefore should only and can only be interpreted within the ambit of the related framework. It seems to me that you have not shown that on this thread. Besides that, Christian school of thought disagrees with you and you evidently know and understand xtian theology better (in my opinion) than most "xtians"

Because of the limitations of language, it is not at all unusual for circumstances to create conflicts between two or more individual requirements within any given body of law. This is true in both secular law and Jewish law and I brought up Jesus' reasoning on the Sabbath only to illustrate how those conflicts are ethically resolved.

Language has its limits in secular law but language did not limit the understanding of God's Word to Israel and the limits of language was not the case in Jesus' reasoning on the Sabbath except that for 400 years (since Nehemiah) there was silence, no Word from Jehovah, no Biblical record of any communication between Jehovah and the Jews which had always been the case since Jehovah spoke to Moses and throughout the Nation's history...... ( Malachi 2:7 . . .For the lips of a priest should safeguard knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth, because he is the messenger of Jehovah of armies. ) And so for 400 years subjugated Israel, having no monarchy and no prophets was not abandoned, they had the Kohanim and Jehovah's Holy Spirit to guide them. And that is why according to Christianity Jehovah's angel broke the silence after 400 years when he spoke to Zechariah-the priest; (not some Pharisee) The Pharisees had usurped the authority of the priests. TD I do not want to go out on a tangent but I would like to point out that every mechanical device even Jewish law (not actually the law but the Jews) needs adjustment from time to time, and after 400 years it should be expected that Israel needed as usual- adjustment FROM GOD: thus came Jesus the talking horse.

God has told you in plain and simple, black and white, clear and unambiguous, easy to understand terms that you cannot cause the death of an innocent human being. This includes acts of omission as well as commission.

Intentionally or not, your posts on this thread allude to Rabbinical application of Leviticus 18:5 and Numbers 15:32.

WT does not see it like that in your statement quoted above when it apples to BT.

Please don't reflexively reply, "God's Law on Blood."

I did not do that. I put quotation marks in front of the wt teaching to show that that is what the wt interprets (that is where the limit of language that you have pointed out applies and requires or warrants a talking horse) about blood transfusions but not that such teaching ( BT= violating God's Law) has been established as such in our discussion, that is another subject matter although I agree your pointing this out is relevant in our discussion, however, your posts on this thread assume that it is God's Law and focus on application, and my response to you also is in the context of application assume that it is God's Law. If blood transfusions do not violate God's law then any discussion about the application of a nonexistent law is moot.

IT is late. I am tired.

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

Such was not my conclusion at all. My illustration to Myelaine was only intended to show how basic assumptions affect legal interpretation. Which is more valuable; life or property? If life is more valuable than property, then laws whose purpose is to protect property must, of necessity be limited by that assumption. TD

Are you saying then that since blood is sacred because blood represent s life, then life is axiomatically more valuable than the blood representing it? If that is what your are saying then you are incorrect because blood is sacred to God not because it is merely an object (property sort of speak) representing life but because to God blood specifically represents the life of the creature from where the blood came from.There is no license stated in the OT or the NT that automatically grants the right to violate "God's law on blood" except for your application of Jesus' interpretation of what is lawful on the Sabbath, and it appears that, hence, you feel that it is ok (or ou) to consume blood in an attempt to be healed or to be cured.

But there is also an axiomatic difference(big) between blood- a mere object except to God- and human life or the life of a child that could possibly be saved ("prolonged") with an attempt using blood. "Each person must decide for themselves whether to obey God's Law on Blood." JW stand firm "mechanically" on their position on blood ( on idolatry too.) JW believe that consuming blood is a sin and that there is nothing stated or implied in the Bible that grants the license to eat or consume blood.

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

Pointing out that Jehovah's Witnesses are no different than anybody else in this respect is a reiteration of the obvious. TD

That is not what I did. Kindly, read below.

Therefore, you conclude that in a survival situation jw should be required to consume blood same as a Jew is required to eat to save his life over keeping kosher? WT does not view it like that.

compare

14 "What if a doctor tells us that we will die if we do not have a blood transfusion? Each person must decide whether to obey God’s law on blood. Christians deeply respect God’s gift of life, and we will look for alternative treatments to keep living; but we will not accept a blood transfusion."

I was pointing out the difference that Judaism requires that a Jew eat non kosher to save his life and the wt teaches that each person must decide whether to obey God's law on blood.

Your quote from the JW website is a good illustration of the mechanical application of law of which I spoke.

Can you explain what do you mean by "mechanical" application of the Law.

Do you believe that Jesus of the Bible broke the Sabbath? Why or why not?

Thank you for your clarification so as not to confuse with "Heysus" the Spanish kid who broke into the house in your story on the Sabbath.

All kidding aside, I see your point: Assuming that receiving a blood transfusion violates God's Law, God must allow laws to be broken same as Jesus used God's Holy Spirit to work on the Sabbath (.."..My father has kept working until now and I keep working.. because Lord of the Sabbath is what the son of man is..." Hence God should allow JW eating blood and receiving "life saving" blood transfusion to survive because JW conscience is (seemingly) ONLY based upon wt interpretation of Scripture.

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

JWs have come to a far different interpretation of Jewish Law by means of rejecting the culture and theology that shaped it. -DJ

NO they haven't. But they base their teachings on the "NT's'" interpretation of the "OT"

According to the Gospels, Christianity was a Jewish movement that coexisted with other Jewish movements pre 70. IT did not catch on, however, Pharisaic Judaism not being Temple based, according to Talmudic legends, survived- bais hatred or un-based, take your pick.

In the Soncino Press, (I have all the books) the publishers give some academic credit to non-Jewish commentators, referring to them as 'semi-heathen' and "by the same token," (an expression used by TD ) surviving Pharisaic Judaism like the Samaritans or even a Policeman fired from his job but who continues to presume his duty, have no authority, and their interpretations although having some academic merit (the Samaritan Pentateuch for example) is not Temple based, have no spiritual value, and also not from Jehovah. Jws interpretations of Tanakh is not baseless, made up by the wt, they are the teachings of Christianity as opposed to the teachings of surviving Judaism, and besides that, JW proclaim authority.

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

but you would not automatically be adjudged as a thief.

Therefore, you conclude that in a survival situation jw should be required to consume blood same as a Jew is required to eat to save his life over keeping kosher? WT does not view it like that.

From the JW website:

14 "What if a doctor tells us that we will die if we do not have a blood transfusion? Each person must decide whether to obey God’s law on blood. Christians deeply respect God’s gift of life, and we will look for alternative treatments to keep living; but we will not accept a blood transfusion."

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

the bible teaches explicity that the jews are God's chosen people

Who really is a Jew?

Am I God's chosen people if I am a jw and a jew? Or is any convert to Judaism a jew. And what determines what constitutes a jew, the Halacha ? or your conclusions ? or Jehovah?

Zechariah 8:23 (Romans 2:29) and (Galatians 3:29) Romans 9:22-25, Galatians 6:15,16

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

JWs, by contrast, had no such events from the heavens to base their religion upon. Claiming...

And you can believe your UN-prevailing view if you like just the same as all Gents have their views too equal to Judaism- but without Jehovah it is moot.

Shavouth

Interestingly corresponds with God's Holy Spirit operative upon non-Jews (Pentecost 33CE as proclaimed by JW: "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you (Jews) and given to a nation producing its fruits.")

(Exodus 23:16, 17) . . .Also, the festival of harvest of the first ripe fruits of your labors, of what you sow in the field; and the festival of ingathering at the outgoing of the year, when you gather in your labors from the field. 17 On three occasions in the year every male of yours will appear before the face of the [true] Lord, Jehovah.and Deut 16:16

It appears to be a historical fact that the siege on Jerusalem that resulted in the destruction of "the Temple #2" began on Passover 70. According to Josephus, Jerusalem was filled to the brim with observant Jews, keepers of the above mentioned mitzvah. Seems that Jehovah wanted to kill as many as possible by unleashing the Roman army at the right time, only after the city was filled, using the law of Moses as a trap to catch as many as possible. Even Titus the heathen Gentile attributed his conquest to God who abandoned the Jews to him What seems to have prevailed at that time was not the law of Moses (see arch of Titus in Rome) but the command of Jesus. Josephus also points out that along with Christians, secular Jews also headed for the hills and the DEcapolis not trusting that Jehovah would save them in his Holy City from the Romans.

According to Josephus, the first siege in Jerusalem in 66 resulted in the defeat of the Romans, the rebels pursuing the Romans up to the same place where Joshua had commanded in the ancient past; "Sun, Moon, stand still!" But ironically, the sun was turned into darkness and the moon did not give its light because the Jewish zealots defeat of the Roman army was not complete, the Romans came back.

95

Supreme Court Of Russia bans Jehovah's Witnesses as an 'extremist organization'

by EdenOne in

read the news here.

the jehovah's witnesses lost their appeal to the supreme court of russia.

bethel to be liquidated.. i bet the gb saw this coming ... here comes the persecution complex paranoia.

Fisherman

Sorry, but your view of the Witness religion is idealized and simplistic.....It does NOT reflect reality!

If you say so.