Posts by TD

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

TD

Fisherman

These phrases do not relate to “abstain” because abstain deals with consumption. Or conduct involving pleasure.

If you're asserting that eating (or possibly drinking) of blood should be understood from the context of the Decree, then I'm in complete agreement.

Abstain and its synonyms (refrain, forbear, etc.) negate action. The fundamental meaning is to keep or prevent oneself from doing or saying something. (I'm quoting the American Heritage Dictionary word for word)

"Although the argument was intense, the couple abstained from hateful words"

This is a perfectly legitimate use of the word. The action, though unstated, is derived from the context

"Her obstetrician said, 'Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol.'"

"His dermatologist said, 'Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol.'"

Even though both doctors have said, "abstain from alcohol" we would not automatically understand them to be talking about the same thing. While we would understand the former to be a reference to alcoholic beverages, we would understand the latter to be a reference to the topical application of alcohol.

English, of course, is not the language the bible was written it, which is why grammar and context are crucial.

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

TD

Faithful Israelites in ancient times didn't transfuse blood or use medical blood products.

Ancient Israel did not wrestle with the ethics of artificial and in-vitro fertilization. Or performing a root canal on the sabbath. Or autopsy. Or bone marrow transplant. Or post-exposure vaccines and serums.

The argument from silence (If that's your argument) is a logical fallacy.

-----

"Abstain from blood." (again)

Another way to look at the grammatical error in the JW interpretation is to rephrase the abstention as a finite negative.

As an example, I can easily state what it means to abstain from fornication.

It means, "Do not fornicate."

What does it mean to abstain from blood?

"Do not ______" ---What?

At some point the act of abstaining must be defined and the only interpolations a translator may legitimately make are those supported by the context.

I've explained this in every way I can think of and you continue to regurgitate the dishonesty of Jehovah's Witnesses.

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

TD

"Abstain from blood."

Again, a complete sentence requires a transfer of action between subject and object:

-----

"The dog bit the boy."

"The man caught a fish."

"The child threw the ball."

-----

Verbs that fulfill this function are called transitive or finite.

"Abstain" is not a transitive verb. It can't take an object and can't transfer action between subject and object:

-----

"Abstain from shrubbery"

"Abstain from locomotive"

"Abstain from sky"

"Abstain from crankshaft"

-----

The phrases above are incomplete and as such are nonsensical.

Like JW writers, you are invoking an incomplete predicate apart from the context that completes it and passing it off as an independent construction.

If you realize what you're doing it's dishonest. If you don't realize what you're doing, it's ignorant.

Like the thread title states, what the Decree actually said was, "To keep abstaining....from blood." --A clear reference to a prohibition that was already in existence at the time the words were written.

If you can bridge the gap between the eating of blood and the transfusion of blood without committing the fallacy of equivocation, or making reference to Bram Stoker or posting silly pictures, I'd like to hear it.

I honestly don't think you can though. JW writers have been trying for 60+ years and haven't been able to do it.

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

TD

The Jerusalem counsel was precipitated thus:

"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

The earliest Christians, especially in Jerusalem, had simply added belief in Jesus to a full observance of the Law.

The decision of the council was that new converts did not have to be circumcised or follow the law, but did need to observe four abstentions

As Christian commentators observe, these were the minimum requirements for the alien resident stated in the same order they appear in the Torah.

Improperly bled meat is covered by the third abstention. The first abstention is about idolatry, or more precisely the Jewish belief that it did not matter if the idol sacrifice was later sold at a meat market or not. --Benefiting from the sin was participation in the sin.

Paul's more emancipated viewpoint is a problem for those who claim the Decree was necessary for salvation and it requires a more studied explanation than merging and conflating two of the abstentions.

EasyPrompt appears to be confused about every material detail here.

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

TD

EasyPrompt

Your ignorance of your own ignorance is hard to deal with, but I'll take a crack at it.

The OP mentioned a principle of Halakha know as pikuach nefesh. In a nutshell, the preservation of life, being the purpose of the Law, (Yoma 85b) took precedence over everything except cases involving murder, idolatry and incest

This is Rabbinic interpretation. --An invention of the Pharisees that Jesus of the Bible not only accepted, but did not believe was being taken far enough.

So you can step off your fundamentalist pedestal and at least agree with Jesus of the Bible here.

While you're at it, you might want to reread (And possibly amend) your reply to Vanderhoven7 above.

49

a pet peeve of mine

by enoughisenough in

jw
friends

putting this under "friends" because i couldn't figure out where to put it.

it is very often on here and in ex jw videos, ect that people like to undermine some of those who once we would have called friends.

there seems to be a view that window washers, plumbers, cleaners, construction workers are somehow less intelligent than those who may be college educated.

TD

The term was coined 30+ years ago in the early days of JW discussion forums (I was there)

There were many more JW apologists back then, each one smug in the assurance that JW teaching trumped "Wordly education."

The takeaway was simple. --Don't argue outside the sphere of your own knowledge.

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

TD

You guys are a bunch of Pharisees, making advice into commands while toying with the lives of children.

To that, I would point out that Rabbinical interpretation existed for the purpose of resolving conflicts. If an occupied building collapsed on the sabbath, was it a violation to clear the rubble and search for survivors?

The JW's have created a conflict where none existed. --A conflict between (of all things) one of the highest of all mitzvot and kashrut (!)

That's pretty far beyond anything Judaism (ancient or modern) has come up with.

49

a pet peeve of mine

by enoughisenough in

jw
friends

putting this under "friends" because i couldn't figure out where to put it.

it is very often on here and in ex jw videos, ect that people like to undermine some of those who once we would have called friends.

there seems to be a view that window washers, plumbers, cleaners, construction workers are somehow less intelligent than those who may be college educated.

TD

But, if a man is a lawyer and asked to perform surgery, would you use define him with derogatory words because he was out of his field of knowledge? NO!

No indeed.

49

a pet peeve of mine

by enoughisenough in

jw
friends

putting this under "friends" because i couldn't figure out where to put it.

it is very often on here and in ex jw videos, ect that people like to undermine some of those who once we would have called friends.

there seems to be a view that window washers, plumbers, cleaners, construction workers are somehow less intelligent than those who may be college educated.

TD

So, enoughisenough

Do you understand what we mean by "Window Washer University" now?

There's a good example of it in a thread you are currently participating in.

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

TD

I would suggest that the problem is more basic and fundamental than what is being argued.

The Decree doesn't actually say "abstain from blood" --That is not a grammatically complete construction.

What it actually says is, ἀπέχεσθαι...tοῦ αἵματος. -- To keep abstaining from blood or To be abstaining from blood.

It's a clear reference to a prohibition that was already in effect at the time the words were written. (i.e. The eating or possibly drinking of blood)

It therefore becomes incumbent upon the claimant to demonstrate in concrete terms, how and why transfusion would fall under the umbrella of this prohibition. That's not an easy argument to make, as its not supported. by modern medicine.

JW writers attempt to sidestep this responsibility via semantic legerdemain. They invoke an incomplete predicate apart from the context that completes it and pass it off as an independent construction. (I'd be happy to elaborate on the grammatical issue.)

That is not a latitude you should allow. Make them stick to what the Bible actually says.