Yes I did. Far more thoroughly than your confused ramblings deserved.
No you did not.
Israelites were forbidden to eat dead animals.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
cofty, you did not answer my questions.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
I'm going to let the sheer stupidity of the captioned statement shimmer in the air for the sake of posterity
Ok, but but you are only an advocate so your opinions and explanations and arguments as you see them are only your opinions and nothing more. You have to show relevance on this thread or link to another thread to support what you say.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
cofty only post his theories but he cannot back them up
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
His tactics were identical to Fishy's
What tactics, I posted scriptures you posted color. And you did not answer my questions in my post.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
I've taken my best shot (On multiple threads) at explaining that no single requirement of the Law functions apart from the others. I've tried in all sincerity to explain the reason for this. TD
This is a different thread a different Topic. Show relevance here in this discussion.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Does a person incur guilt by becoming unclean?
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
cofty, I told you to stick with the subject matter. But have it your way. I will play your game.
Fisherman has used five isolated texts in an attempt to refute this position.
Wrong, show how the text are isolated. Show how I am attempting to refute my position.
It is really difficult to understand why you thought this had anything to do with the topic.
Show why you believe that.
Fishy - I have now dealt thoroughly with all five of the verses you used to try to refute my argument.
No you havent.
It is now your task to explain why Lev.17 classes killing an animal and eating it unbled as a serious crime but eating the unbled flesh of an animal found already dead as nothing but a temporary inconvenience.
No it ain't. Your conclusions do not invalidate the prohibition to Israel not to eat dead animals. And stop posting your theories that do not invalidate the law as stated.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
sigh -TD
What does that have to do with the subject?
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Absolutely not.
under these circumstances the Law is giving PERMISSION to eat unbled meat.
If an Israelite farmer found an animal "already dead" he was free to eat it with IMPUNITY..
VS
(Deuteronomy 14:21) 21 “You must not eat any animal that was found dead. You may give it to the foreign resident who is inside your cities, and he may eat it, or it may be sold to a foreigner. For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God. . .
(Numbers 15:40) 40 This will help you remember, and you will observe all my commandments and be holy to your God.(Leviticus 17:14-16) 14 For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” 15 If anyone, whether a native or a foreigner, eats an animal found dead or one torn by a wild animal, he must then wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; then he will be clean. 16 But if he does not wash them and does not bathe himself, he will answer for his error.’”
Lev 17:14-16 distinguishes between the blood of dead animals and the blood of an animal sacrificed for food. Albeit eating dead animals was forbidden to the Israelites under the law of Moses confuting your bleiefs that it was not.
(By the way, unless your color adds to the validity of your argument, you are wasting my time and everybody else that does not wish to be distracted from the subject matter -unless that is your intention.)