Interesting and thanks!
Posts by TD
-
11Another Tidbit regarding Acts 15
by peacefulpete inacts 15 has an interesting backstory (and textual history) that has been touched on elsewhere so here i will only say, the purpose of the section, and much of the book, is to re-envision the history of the early days of xtianity.
the deep schisms, (some might say even different origins) are made to appear superficial and inconsequential.
this theme contiues with the choice of two 'prophets' from jerusalem traveling back to antioch to share with paul and barny, named judas (yes another one) and silas.
-
-
-
16
PIMO but to scared to talk about doubts
by Indoubtbigtime ini am pimo but too scared to talk about my doubts with anyone for fear of being shunned.
i know many now have doubts that the vaccines are safe and effective this is as good as doubting the gb.
you can it say anything in doubt about the vaccines because the gb still act like salesmen for big pharmaceuticals .
-
-
TD
Nicolaou is right.
The JW faith is an epic conspiracy theory, where a relatively small number of people know the "Truth" while the vast majority are mislead by an evil manipulator.
It's why JW's believe they are qualified to argue with any expert on any subject.
Hematology, Astrophysics, Paleontology, Astronomy, Anthropology, Archeology, Linguistics, you name it. The JW's know much more than those who have spent their entire lives in these fields.
Shedding that mindset doesn't happen overnight.
For some people, it doesn't happen at all. They spend the rest of their lives taking their information from dubious sources
-
-
-
TD
Winder:
Fleegle:
They look to be about my age.
Both have that glazed, hypnotized look I've come to know well. (Hard to describe, but you know it when you see it.)
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " 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.
-
-
TD
Convincing a believing JW of the absurdity of the whole mess is beyond my ability as a communicator, I'm, afraid. (I have tried) -
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " 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.
-
-
TD
Fisherman,
In my view, the Decree is exactly what the story represents it to be. --An attempt to mend a rift between the largely Jewish Jerusalem church and the largely Gentile Antioch Church. Although Ancient Greek is rich in imperatives, the Decree is not framed in the language of command and the word of choice among English translators (i.e. Abstain) carries a strong connotation of voluntary compliance, which is reflected in most dictionaries.
This view is neither here nor there as far as JW's are concerned, so I would frame a rebuttal strictly within the framework of what JW's have taught.
It is clear, in retrospect, that they have simply made a mistake. For centuries it was thought that blood was actually a more elemental form of food. This is evident in the writings of Thomas Bartholin, Jean Baptiste Denys and even the historian, H.G. Wells. Consider, for example, a passage from Wells' novel, War of the Worlds:
"Entrails they had none. They did not eat, much less digest. Instead, they took the fresh, living blood of other creatures and injected it into their veins…..The physiological advantages of the practice of injection are undeniable, if one thinks of the tremendous waste of human time and energy occasioned by eating and the digestive process. Our bodies are half made up of glands and tubes and organs, occupied in turning heterogeneous food into blood."
The JW teaching on transfusion was based upon this misconception for at least the first 10 years of its existence. Transfusion was viewed as a form of intravenous feeding that fell directly under the umbrella of biblical prohibitions against eating blood. (The original (brown) edition of the book, Make Sure of all Things states this explicitly as do 50's and early 60's era Watchtowers)
Eventually, JW's realized that blood is human tissue; that transfusion is a form of tissue transplant and that transplantation is both physically and morally distinguishable from consumption. It therefore became necessary to enlarge the scope of the Decree far beyond what they themselves had previously taught. AFAIK, no reason was ever given for this (Other than the fact that it was necessary to prop up the teaching on transfusion)
None of these attempts hold up under scrutiny.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " 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.
-
-
TD
Greg Stafford, back when he was a believing JW, came up with a novel defense of the Decree. (Or more precisely, the JW interpretation thereof)
I'm surprised the JW's never adopted it, as it was defensible from the standpoint of translation and grammar and did not set up a huge contradiction with Paul's more emancipated views on food sacrificed to idols.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " 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.
-
-
TD
Fisherman,
If I understand your allusion, you are referring to a fallacy of definition vis-à-vis what constitutes a sexual act. The gentleman in question promoted a definition of convenience when there were already accepted legal, medical, ethical and religious definitions in place
I would respond by pointing out that you are the one promoting an esoteric definition here, not me. I am the one with the weight of legal, medical, ethical and religious definitions on my side, not you.
Like I said, if you believe there is either a physical, moral or ontological equivalency at stake here, then it is up to you to provide a concrete demonstration, free from false analogies, grammatical misconstructions and your own personal gut feelings.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " 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.
-
-
TD
Nothing can me more simple and more removed from sophistry than if someone consumes 3 quarts of blood, pumping a load of blood into one’s organism he is not abstaining from blood. That is not equivocation.
No?
Like I said, there are only two ways that a JW can make their interpretation work:
(1) By paraphrasing the verse using words that no translator has any business using.
“To Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is a more important reason for avoiding taking in blood: God’s law forbids it." [W96 8/15 p. 32]
(2) By dispensing with the context and grammar entirely:
“Jehovah’s Witnesses decline blood transfusions for religious reasons. ‘Abstain from blood,’ the Bible commands [W80 10/15 p. 21]
----------
Both methods are textbook examples of misdirection through ambiguity for reasons a man of your intelligence would be aware of.
With the former, you know that the human body is not one system, but many
You know that there are substantial differences between, for example, taking water into your stomach (Your digestive system) and taking water into you lungs (Your respiratory system)
You know that although drinking a glass of water and drowning at the bottom of a lake could both be loosely described as "taking in water" or "a failure to abstain from water" it is obfuscatory and equivocal to deliberately use generic terms when more specific terms are called for.
----------
With the latter, you know that the word, "abstain" is intransitive
You know that it can't take a direct object and that a finite verb is therefore required to complete the thought.
You know that phrases like "abstain from crankshaft" and "abstain from locomotive" and "abstain from shrubbery" are nonsensical for exactly this reason. (i.e. They are grammatically incomplete)
You know that the clarification required to define the abstention from blood is found in the surrounding context of the Decree and it is therefore obfuscatory and equivocal to invoke the incomplete predicate as an independent construction.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " 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.
-
-
TD
Fisherman:
Like everything else, medical advice is dependent upon the context in which it is given. An obstetrician and a dermatologist might have two entirely different things in mind when directing a patient to, "abstain from alcohol."
Regardless, blood is not comparable to alcohol inasmuch as it had a purpose in the body long before the fall of man and the need for a Redeemer ever arose.. If you recognize the difference between eating a human kidney for Sunday dinner vs. the transplantation of a human kidney so that it can continue to act as a kidney, (And I assume that you do) then analogies to simple compounds that are broken down and metabolized regardless of the avenue of egress don't really hold up.----------
ῥώννυμι is an interesting word that can be translated in many different ways and the JW's, to my knowledge do not assign any theological significance to their rending:
"The comment “Good health to you” was not a promise to the effect, ‘If you abstain from blood or fornication, you will have better health.’ It was simply a closure to the letter, such as, ‘Farewell.’"
(A similar statement appears in the study edition of the RNWT)
----------
It's easy to say the Mosaic law was abolished, but at the time of the Decree, that idea could have gotten you killed. (We're talking about a conflict that eventually cost both Paul and James their lives.)
Here was the problem and the solution linked together by the Bible writer himself:
“You behold, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews; and they are all zealous for the Law. But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them neither to circumcise their children nor to walk in the [solemn] customs....As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.”----------
Transfusion can't be argued one way or the other from the Bible, but that doesn't justify sophistry. Cofty's argument is short, simple and should be enough, but if you believe there is either a physical, moral or ontological equivalency at stake here, then it is up to you to demonstrate it and not simply equivocate.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " 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.
-
-
TD
Fisherman,
—“And from sexual immorality….” Jesus added to the meaning of adultery “on every sort of ground” so your rule doesn’t strictly apply. However, how are blood transfusions outside the scope?
πορνεία is the name of a finite act (fornication) that must needs be defined
αἷμα is the name of an object (blood) and we are therefore dependent upon the context to define the prohibited act.
Your extreme familiarity with JW terminology (Which is not, strictly speaking, grammatically correct) is likely the reason you're having trouble with this.