“supplies of offensive weapons to the kyiv regime would lead to a global catastrophe,” state duma chairman vyacheslav volodin said.
“if washington and nato supply weapons that would be used for striking peaceful cities and making attempts to seize our territory as they threaten to do, it would trigger a retaliation with more powerful weapons.”.
what is russia implying?
“Supplies of offensive weapons to the Kyiv regime would lead to a global catastrophe,” State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav Volodin said. “If Washington and NATO supply weapons that would be used for striking peaceful cities and making attempts to seize our territory as they threaten to do, it would trigger a retaliation with more powerful weapons.”
What is Russia implying? And are the threats nothing to worry about?
shower thought entered my mind the other day... jesus christ.
as per doctrine.
is still alive in heaven right now correct?
Then when he became king in 1914, it was applied
Playing devils advocate here but prayers for forgiveness are based on the application of the ransom which must apply after God accepted payment. Also, as Alan F pointed out, after God accepted payment for the sin of Adam and Jesus dying and all that suffering as payment in full, what legal grounds is there for human’s death and human suffering, legally speaking. Farkel put it in a very funny way, when is the insurance company going to pay on the premium? It is understood that the ransom gives God law to forgive mankind because the penalty was paid but since the penalty was paid what law still holds man captive to sin and death?
shower thought entered my mind the other day... jesus christ.
as per doctrine.
is still alive in heaven right now correct?
The Bible says ransom is payment in full. Alan F argued in his article: Then legally, why does humanity still suffer. And why works of faith. What ls the legal justification for death and human suffering? However, before AF article, the Knowledge book brought that point out pointing out that after the ransom was paid, God had the legal grounds to bring Armageddon back then in the 1st Century. But he didn’t.
10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
This is why there was no penalty.
1954 WT that I cited explains that the penalty for eating a dead animal was washing your garments, the state of uncleanness for the rest of the day and the ritual bath.
JW helpers are not anointed I think so they wouldn’t be disappointed.
encourage GB members to retire when they no longer feel able to continue.
You mean stop being FDS? How is that possible.
10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
Another point to consider about eating a dead animal is that the person was unclean until evening and that wasn’t easy. Then he had to go through the ordeal of a ritual (mikveh) and that wasn’t easy either. By the time it was all over, he was hungry again so he goes back and eats another piece. And then he has to go through the same ordeal again and again and again every time he ate some dead animal. Even if he wasn’t hungry, he had to be careful not to accidentally touch it or any of his family members either or anybody else or they would spend all their time of day in an unclean state and taking ritual baths. Suppose the entire nation made a practice of this as cofty suggests, the entire nation would always be unclean and at the mikveh day in and day out an unholy nation all day long.
I figure that there were Gentiles conveniently not so far away that would buy the dirty thing off their hands so they could get rid of it asap and didn’t have to touch it so they didn’t have to go through that ordeal. “Take this unclean thing away away from here.”
(Jews are not allowed to violate the Sabbath so a Jew will seek assistance from a “Shabbos Goy” when needed to kindly do things that violate the Sabbath such as turning ithe lights because Gentiles don’t have to observe the Sabbath. a SG is not paid because that would violate the Sabbath but appreciation is shown maybe by giving him some food etc.)
10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
The 'penalty' was take a bath.
Similarly for Christians if they sin there is no “penalty” for mur$er, eating blood, or any other forgivable sin.
And yet you would prefer a child dies.
No. You conclude that. The issue here is whether or not the act of eating a dead animal is wrong, not the penalty for the Acts. Applying eating dead animals to blood transfusions is a cofty theory that Blood is only sacred to God after life is taken and derivatively (from God’s point of view,) people can go around eating dead animals, and eating blood from living animals or humans just as long as their life wasn’t taken for the same reason the blood in a blood transfusion is meaningless sort of speak to God.
10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
unbled meat of animals found dead with impunity.
I have already explained why that is not true. The Mosaic law states that the Israelites were not allowed to eat dead animals or one torn. I have also shown how Jews down to this day don’t do that. Just because laws are in place doesn’t mean that people will always follow them. The penalty for eating a dead unbled animal was ceremonial purification.
“Or when a person touches anything unclean, whether the dead body of an unclean wild animal, an unclean domestic animal, or an unclean swarming creature,he is unclean and has become guilty even if he does not realize it.” —Leviticus 5:2
If you reject my explanation, that is all I have to offer.
The book of Leviticus is an interesting book because it applies God’s law from a perspective of holiness.
10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
cofty, in addition to everything that I have posted which you regard as nothing, I also referenced a WT article which also falsifies your theory. I don’t want to put the article in my own words because you will also regard it as nothing, but find the article online and read it if you wish. Also, TD’s reply also applies to you, the gentleman’s definition vis-à-vis authoritative definition.
I don’t want to win an argument with you. I have acknowledged that you have highlighted an interesting point about 2 sorts of blood. Blood would have no atonement value at all after an animal or Jesus was killed or sacrificed if it didn’t have that value to begin with. Why not the the heart or the liver? Because the life is in the blood. You are very mistaken. The Act of killing a creature doesn’t make blood sacred to God. It is not the act but the blood because “the soul is in the blood”.
