Posts by Giles Gray

47

Solar Eclipse - How Common is It?

by Sea Breeze in

of the 213 moons in our solar system, only ours provides a total solar eclipse.. coincidence?.

Giles Gray

Sea Breeze - Of the 213 moons in our solar system, only ours provides a total solar eclipse.

This is incorrect.

The moon Charon also produces a total solar eclipse.

Is that a coincidence...?

203

My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT

by cofty in

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.

Giles Gray

I’m sure that many of these points have already been mentioned, but it is useful to compare findings when they have been independently established.

Gentiles not prohibited to eat unbled meat

Under the Law of Moses, the alien residents (those who were not proselytes) were totally at liberty to eat blood according to Deuteronomy 14:21. What is interesting about that scripture is the fact that God Himself gave permission to sell meat with blood in it to those not under the Law. He could have enforced a nationwide ban, but chose not to.

God anointed Gentiles with the Holy Spirit regardless of the fact that they ate unbled meat

It is of great importance to note that Jehovah accepted the Gentiles and anointed them with Holy Spirit, despite the fact that they were at liberty to eat unbled meat according to the Law. (Acts 10:3-4,15 ; 11:1-18 ; 15:7-9)

13 years

According to the Watchtower’s chronology, there was a period of 13 years between the first Gentile conversion to Christianity, and the Council of Jerusalem, when the issue of the Law was raised. As mentioned above, during those years they were totally at liberty to eat unbled meat.

If it really was so important to the will of God, why did He not inform the Gentiles of His stipulations regarding blood and the Law right at the beginning of their conversion? God was in direct communication with Peter, so adding one more detail to the mix would not have been a big issue.

It makes no sense that He would wait for 13 years before deciding to inform the congregations.

Jewish Christian sensibilities was the only reason why the issue of the Law was raised. It did not originate from God

The issue of the Law was raised only because of the fact that some ‘unauthorised’ Jewish Christians took it upon themselves to insist that the Gentile brothers were to observe the Law. (Acts 15:1,5,24)

Had those Jewish converts understood that the Law had been fulfilled, they would have accepted that the Gentiles were not obligated to adhere to any part of it.

Hence, there is every reason to conclude that things would have simply continued as they had for the previous 13 years.

The use of the word ‘ABSTAIN’

The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘abstain’ as follows :-

“to not do something that you could do… If you abstain from voting, you do not vote although you are permitted to vote.”

In light of the points above, the use of the word ‘abstain’ is significant owing to the fact that the Gentile Christians had been free to eat meat with blood in it for the previous 13 years.

It is not the same as a command. It is asking people to voluntarily refrain from doing something that they could otherwise do. The language used in the decisions made at the Council of Jerusalem contrasts significantly with the language found in Leviticus.

Paul’s letters also contradict the notion that the word ‘abstain’ was considered to be a commend.

Acts 15:29 says in part:-

“to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols…”

6 years after the Council of Jerusalem, Paul readdressed the issue of food offered to idols in his letter to the Corinthians. (1 Corinthians chapters 8 & 10) Had Paul understood the decisions to be a command, he would have simply reiterated that food offered to idols was not to be consumed as it was against God’s law.

Paul said no such thing.

Instead, he made it clear that food offered to idols was perfectly acceptable, so long as it didn’t stumble the conscience of a fellow believer. (1 Cor 8:7,9-11)

Therefore, with regards to food offered to idols, the word ‘abstain’ could not have been a Divine command.

Around the same time, in his letter to the Romans, Paul also clarified “that nothing (no food) is defiled in itself; only where a man considers something to be defiled, to him it is defiled.” (Romans 14:14) There is no reason to conclude that Paul’s counsel is not inclusive of ‘things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled’, considering his letter to Corinth.

Obviously, fornication was considered unbefitting for Gentile Christians. On the other hand, the dietary requirements of Acts 15 are debatable.

There is a lot more that could be said.

A more comprehensive consideration of this topic can be found in this link:-

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6320306342854656/exchange-jw-about-blood-doctrine

4

Unbaptised Publishers

by Giles Gray in

does anyone know which year the organisation first counted unbaptised publishers as jehovah's witnesses?.

Giles Gray

Thank you Atlantis. You're an absolute star as always.

Not sure why but I always thought that the Watchtower Organisation only counted active baptised publishers in their official statistics. I didn't know until recently that unbaptised publishers are also counted as 'Jehovah's Witnesses'.

Many thanks once again for that information.

4

Unbaptised Publishers

by Giles Gray in

does anyone know which year the organisation first counted unbaptised publishers as jehovah's witnesses?.

Giles Gray

Does anyone know which year the Organisation first counted unbaptised publishers as Jehovah's Witnesses?

25

Eating of blood prohibition specifically not forbidden for non-Jews

by peacefulpete in

deut 14:21 you shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner.

for you are a people consecrated to yhwh.... it seems quite self evident the ritual of blood letting prior to eating meat was understood by the deuteronomist as binding only on jews..

Giles Gray

@ peacefulpete

I recently had an online exchange with a JW who claims to be on the HLC. We touched on the point you are making with regards to the scripture in Deuteronomy 14:21.

Here is an excerpt from one of my comments which you may find helpful/interesting:-

The Mosaic Law states that it was forbidden to eat unbled meat only to those who were under obligation to observe the Law. For others there was no prohibition.

Deuteronomy 14:21 clearly shows that Jehovah stipulated that meat with blood in it was to be given or sold to the Gentiles who were ‘inside their gates’ and it was to be eaten as food.

According to the Law, only natural Israelites and proselytes (Gentile converts) were under obligation to abstain from the consumption of meat with blood in it. The Law states that Gentiles were not restricted in what they ate.

This scripture has a huge significance when considering the events that took place in the lead up to the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts.

Under the direction of Jehovah through Holy Spirit, Peter was sent to the house of Cornelius. As a Gentile, Cornelius and his household were not required to observe the Law and were completely at liberty to eat unbled meat. However, according to the Law, Peter should never have entered the house of an unclean Gentile such as Cornelius and certainly should not have eaten a meal under his roof. (Acts 10:28 ; 11:2). Nevertheless Peter was sent there by the Holy Spirit.

To confirm His approval, Jehovah made it known that He accepted the ‘people of the nations’ as anointed Christians by giving those Gentiles the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Crucially, God accepted them into the congregation without imposing on them the need to observe the Law, including any dietary restrictions that the Jews were obligated to observe. This point is vital to bear in mind.

If it really was Jehovah’s intention for Gentile Christians to ‘ABSTAIN’ from eating unbled meat, that moment would have been the time to make His will known.

The fact is that GOD DIDN’T STIPULATE ANY SUCH COMMAND, either then or at a later date.

Not only that, but Jehovah continued to accept the Gentiles into the Christian congregation under those conditions for 13 YEARS before the issue of the Law came up at the Council of Jerusalem. During that time, Gentile Christians were totally at liberty to eat unbled meat and Jehovah demonstrably anointed them as ‘spirit adopted sons’ on that basis. (Romans 8:15)

It wasn’t until the unauthorised Jewish Christians started to insist that the Gentile Christians observe the Law that the issue was raised and as a result, the Gentile Christians were told to ‘abstain…from things strangled’. (Acts 15:1,5,24 ; Compare: Galatians 6:12)

This was not because God expected Gentile converts to permanently refrain from eating unbled meat, otherwise He would have administered His wishes 13 years previously. The bible makes no mention of Jehovah’s commands on this matter. The only reason that the Gentile Christians were told to refrain from eating unbled meat was to appease the overly fragile sensibilities of certain easily offended Jewish Christians, who took it upon themselves to impose the Law onto the Gentile converts.

33

Would you leave the Watchtower if you woke up at age 80 plus, or just stay in for the rest of your life.

by pistolpete in

so yesterday while i was doing some work for a customer, i noticed the wt mags on the sofa.

and i asked the elderly man if he was a jehovah witness?.

he said that he and his wife and all his children were raised in the religion, but only he and his wife attend the meetings or zoom.

Giles Gray

I had a similar(ish) experience when I was exiting.

I used to talk to a family friend who was 86 years of age. I would chat to her about a few of my concerns, mainly about the Society's failed eschatology. She was one of very few people who was tolerant of hearing negative things said about the organisation.

In the end I left and took her beliefs in the process. She continued going to the meetings because she didn't wish to lose her friends.

Even though she was devastated, having spent over 50 years as a JW, she told me that she was glad that she found out that it wasn't the truth, even at the age she was.

Even so, if I was to go back, I don't think I would do it again. She gained nothing from knowing the truth. She just spent the last few years of her life feeling lost, though she did retain her belief in God and the bible.

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

@ jhine

" Thank you for all your effort Giles ."

You're welcome Jan. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.

Let's hope the JW gets back to me soon. The exchange should prove interesting.

Vidiot- "..and they'd rather gargle with broken glass."

How nicely put...

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

@ Rocketman

“Realistically the No Blood doctrine was devised out of personal opinion that should have never have been constituted as a you must do this or you will be disfellowshiped as a JWS”

I think the Watchtower is stuck with this doctrine. If they were to step back from that position now, and make their stand on blood a conscience issue, the lawsuits against them would be overwhelming. I believe that they know their position on blood is incorrect but they need to maintain that stance for fear of litigation.

The reason I say that is because during my research I had a brief look into their apologetics regarding 1 Corinthians chapters 8 and 10, and how the Watchtower defends the fact that food sacrificed to idols was optional. If abstaining from food offerings isn’t mandatory, it stands to reason that the scripture in Acts 15:29 cannot possibly be compulsory.

As far as I could find, the last time that the Watchtower addressed the contradiction of food offerings to idols was way back in the late 1970s. The spin they put on those chapters in 1 Corinthians is all too evident. They claim the food offered to idols was only to do with the taking part in the ceremonial eating of the meat.

This didn’t seem logical. Taking part in that kind of ceremony would have been considered idolatry. The scripture in Acts specifically states to refrain from eating the food offered to idols. If idolatry was the issue, why not just state to abstain from idolatry? Though Paul does address the eating of meat and taking part in idol worship, the Watchtower article doesn’t harmonise with the context of the rest of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, or his letter to the Romans.

I believe the Watchtower knows that their stance on blood is questionable. If that is true it means they are knowingly promoting a prohibition that needlessly risks people’s lives. They are putting their member’s live at risk for the sake of protecting themselves from the backlash of a doctrine they know is not upheld scripturally.

@ TD

Many thanks for making such an interesting post.

I think I will have to go back over it a few times. It’s been a while since I have considered an ‘intransitive verb’ and a ‘finite verb’. Grammar was not my best subject.

Another very simple point I am itching to ask an apologist is to do with the motivation of why the Council of Jerusalem was called for in the first place.

The only reason why observance of the Law was being considered was because of the insistence of the Jewish Christians, demanding that the Gentile brothers follow the Law. Noteworthy is the fact that these Jewish Christians were speaking out of turn.

The bible says:-

“Since we have heard that some from among us have caused YOU trouble with speeches, trying to subvert YOUR souls, although we did not give them any instructions…” (Acts 15:24)

The decisions in Jerusalem were only made because the Jewish brothers were going against the leadership of the apostles.

Had the Jewish Christians not stirred up trouble in the congregations, the issue of the Gentiles and the Law would never have been addressed, which means that the Gentiles would not have been asked to follow those parts of the Law. They would have continued alongside the Jewish brothers as they had for the previous 13 years.

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

@ BluesBrother

“Others have reasoned that this was restrictions on diet only, and should not apply to medical use of blood.”

I agree that it couldn’t have been anything to do with medical use. As far as I’m aware, it is only human blood that is used for medical purposes. The scripture in Acts 15:29 refers only to animal blood.

Considered in context, it stands to reason that the reference to blood was only applicable to ceremonious/symbolic applications, similar to the sacrificial meat also mentioned in that verse.

Many thanks for your consideration of my research and your positive feedback.

@ Bobcat

“…medical blood use is a moot issue. JWs will often fall back on that because the WT often uses that in their argumentation. But it is a red herring.”

That is exactly what I said to this JW, verbatim. It threw him completely. I think they have totally forgotten that the only reason why they don’t accept blood transfusions is because of how they translate Acts 15:29, and not because of the health risks/benefits associated with medical blood procedures.

The only reason they like to debate blood transfusions is because they believe it is an argument they can win. I only mentioned blood once and had three of them wanting to give me a lesson on the benefits of bloodless alternatives.

“One thing JWs don’t appreciate is the fact that in the Bible (both the Noah Covenant and the Mosaic Law) blood is only a symbol for life when the source of blood has been killed. God gave Noah and his descendants permission to eat animal meat on the proviso that they pour out the blood in recognition of the fact that the life belonged to God.”

That’s a really interesting point.

I must confess that up until now I didn’t appreciate that perspective either. It makes perfect sense though, especially considering the paradox of Deuteronomy 14:21.

If the instruction given to Noah was a mandate for all humans, as the JWs insist, the fact that the Law allowed the Israelites to sell food with blood in it to the Gentiles is a contradiction.

However, if those instructions were given for symbolic reasons, as you are suggesting, there would be no issue at all to sell meat with blood in it to the People of the Nations who were not under the Law. It now makes perfect sense.

Many thanks for all the great points you have highlighted.

@ stan livedeath

“once you stop and realise god doesn’t exist-all the forgoing becomes meaningless twaddle. Why anyone would want to deliberately set out to debate it with an active jw is beyond me.”

I would usually agree with your sentiment, but it is the circumstances that makes this exchange with a JW worthwhile.

The debate is taking place in front of other JWs, as well as other interested people. It should receive good exposure and you never know who is looking on and taking note.

Considering that the Watchtower’s blood prohibition policy actually kills people, I thought that putting the information out there that challenges such a harmful teaching might reach someone who could use the information to save their own life, or the life of someone else who is affected.

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

Thanks Neat Blue Dog.

Those points stood out to me too. It's so obvious when examined objectively.

The most profound point for me was the fact that there was no mandate specified when the calling went out to the Gentiles. It took God 13 years to inform the Gentile Christians that they were subject to part of the law.

Why on earth would God wait all those years?

Think how much time & effort that it took to inform all the Gentiles who had been converted in the mean time. All of that work could have been avoided by informing the Gentiles of God's wishes right from the start.

Makes no logical sense.