Posts by shadow

Is this quotation indicative of the opinion that the GB have of themselves? Or is this just a stupid question? Anyone have any actual information on why they do this?

*** w00 10/1 p. 12 Bible - Profitable and Pleasurable ***

A member of the first-century governing body wrote to his brothers: ?If any one of you is lacking in wisdom, let him keep on asking God, for he gives generously to all and without reproaching; and it will be given him. But let him keep on asking in faith, not doubting at all.? (James 1:5, 6) The modern-day Governing Body constantly exhorts us to engage in prayerful Bible reading

There was a change around 1970:

*** w68 9/1 p. 538 What It Means to Be Honest ***

To be honest means, among other things, to be truthful in one?s speech. In the strongest of terms the Bible condemns the practice of lying. Thus Satan the Devil is shown to be the original liar. (John 8:44) How seriously God views lying can be seen from what happened to Ananias and Sapphira. They were immediately stricken dead by God?s power because they lied to the apostle Peter, a member of the Christian congregation?s governing body. Their punishment would seem to indicate that Jehovah views especially seriously any lying or misrepresentation practiced toward those having the right to know the facts because of having positions of oversight in the Christian congregation, such as the traveling representatives of the governing body today.?Acts 5:1-11.

*** w71 12/15 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***

According to a Resolution adopted by the Governing Body of Jehovah?s Witnesses at its meeting on , the chairmanship of the Governing Body should rotate annually in alphabetical order according to the last name of each member.

There are many WT articles condemning the use of titles:

*** w01 6/1 pp. 14-15 ?If God Is for Us, Who Will Be Against Us?? ***

11 They are organized in the manner of the first-century Christian congregation. Jesus set out the principle: ?Do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called ?leaders,? for your Leader is one, the Christ. But the greatest one among you must be your minister.? (Matthew 23:8-11) A congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity. (Job 32:21, 22) Those shepherding the flock of God are told to do so ?not under compulsion, but willingly; neither for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; neither as lording it over those who are God?s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock.? (1 Peter 5:2, 3) Genuine Christian shepherds refrain from trying to make themselves masters over the faith of others. As fellow workers in God?s service, they simply strive to set a fine example.?2 Corinthians 1:24.

*** w00 6/15 pp. 17-19 ?All You Are Brothers? ***

?All You Are Brothers?

?Do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers.??MATTHEW 23:8.

?WHO deserves more honor, a missionary or a Bethelite?? a Christian woman in an Oriental country innocently asked a missionary from . She wanted to know who should be respected more, a missionary from another country or a local minister serving in the branch office of the Watch Tower Society. That innocent question, reflecting a class-conscious culture, took the missionary by surprise. The question of who is greater, however, stems from a desire to know where people stand in the ranks of power and influence.

2 This concern is by no means new. Even Jesus? disciples had an ongoing argument about who was the greatest. (Matthew 20:20-24; Mark 9:33-37; Luke 22:24-27) They too came from a rather class-conscious culture, that of first-century Judaism. With such a society in mind, Jesus counseled his disciples: ?Do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers.? (Matthew 23:8) A religious title such as ?Rabbi,? which means ?Teacher,? ?tends to engender pride and a sense of superiority in those who obtain it, and envy and a sense of inferiority in those who do not; and the whole spirit and tendency of it is contrary to the ?simplicity that is in Christ,?? noted the Bible scholar Albert Barnes. Indeed, Christians refrain from addressing overseers among them as ?Elder So-and-so,? using the word ?elder? as a flattering title. (Job 32:21, 22) On the other hand, elders living up to the spirit of Jesus? counsel honor other members of the congregation, just as Jehovah honors loyal worshipers and Jesus Christ honors loyal followers.

This does not seem to apply to GB. Who decides on this language? Is this an indication of their opinion of themselves? Anyone ever question this?

*** w01 1/15 p. 11 Jehovah?s Witnesses?Moving Forward With Firm Conviction! ***

The annual meeting also included a stirring talk given by Governing Body member David Splane on the yeartext for the year 2001

*** w01 1/1 p. 27 Serving Whole-Souled in Spite of Trials ***

Karl Klein, who serves as a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah?s Witnesses, and his wife, Margaret, visited us while they were on vacation some years ago.

*** w01 1/15 p. 10 Jehovah?s Witnesses?Moving Forward With Firm Conviction! ***

In his opening remarks, the chairman, John E. Barr, a member of the Governing Body

*** w01 1/15 p. 11 Jehovah?s Witnesses?Moving Forward With Firm Conviction! ***

Daniel Sydlik, a member of the Governing Body , gave an absorbing talk.

*** w01 2/1 p. 22 You Can Cope With Discouragement! ***

Nathan H. Knorr, who served as a member of the Governing Body

*** w01 5/1 p. 18 Maintain Your Joy in Jehovah?s Service ***

. N. H. Knorr, who served as a member of the Governing Body

*** w01 5/1 pp. 24-25 Pressing On in Jehovah?s Way Is Our Strength and Joy ***

Carey W. Barber, now a member of the Governing Body

*** w01 5/1 p. 31 ?Jehovah Has Been Very Good to Me!? ***

Brother Klein continued to work as a member of the writing staff and to serve on the Governing Body

*** w01 6/1 p. 9 Strengthen Your Trust in Jehovah ***

Martin Poetzinger, who later became a member of the Governing Body

*** w01 6/15 p. 24 Be Joyful With the Kingdom Hope! ***

Carey Barber, a member of the Governing Body

*** w01 6/15 p. 24 Be Joyful With the Kingdom Hope! ***

Daniel Sydlik, a member of the Governing Body

*** w01 6/15 p. 26 Be Joyful With the Kingdom Hope! ***

Brother Gerrit Lösch, a member of the Governing Body

*** w01 7/1 p. 31 He ?Endured to the End? ***

Ninety-year-old Brother Swingle did just what he had encouraged others to do. He ?endured to the end.? (Matthew 24:13) Although suffering physically, on Wednesday, March 7, he attended a meeting of the Governing Body of Jehovah?s Witnesses of which he was a member

*** w01 10/1 p. 27 A Life of Surprises in Jehovah?s Service ***

Albert Schroeder, who is now a member of the Governing Body

*** w01 11/15 p. 7 The Translation Appreciated by Millions Worldwide ***

Nathan H. Knorr, a member of the Governing Body

*** w01 12/15 p. 25 A Willing Spirit Brings People to ***

Theodore Jaracz, a graduate of the seventh class of , who now serves as a member of the Governing Body

*** w01 12/15 p. 26 A Willing Spirit Brings People to ***

Guy Pierce, a member of the Governing Body

. . . . . etc., etc.

26

JW Blood Doctrine Dismembered

by AlanF in

i thought some people might like to see a strictly bible-based dismemberment of the jw blood doctrine.

for some introductory material, see the thread:.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/67949/4.ashx.

shadow

I still cannot see why anyone would read into Lev 17 that it was an inadvertent act.

Another scripture that casts considerable doubt on any such presumption is:

Leviticus 11:39-40

39 ??Now in case any beast that is YOURS for food should die, he who touches its dead body will be unclean until the evening. 40 And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening; and he who carries off its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening.

Here again it is mentioned along with at least one deliberate act, unless someone could claim it was accidentally carried off.

As for Lev 17:15,16 would not an animal found dead typically not be properly bled? WTS acknowledges this here:

bq 8-9 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood

19 This pouring out of the blood was not simply a religious ritual; it actually was an extension of the divine law given to Noah. When killing an animal, a person should recognize that its life comes from and belongs to God. By not eating the blood, but ?pouring it out? on the altar or on the ground, the Israelite was, in effect, returning the creature?s life to God.

20 For an Israelite to show disregard for life as represented by the blood was viewed as a most serious wrong. The person deliberately disregarding this law about blood was to be ?cut off,? executed. (Leviticus 7:26, 27; Numbers 15:30, 31) A measure of guilt resulted even from eating the blood-containing flesh of an animal that died of itself or that was killed by a wild beast .?Leviticus , 16; compare Leviticus 5:3; .

Some other discussions that I have read make the point that while consumption of blood was prohibited, it could be put to other uses. This does not seem possible for those under the Law because Lev instructed that it be poured out on the ground, however this is absent in the command given to Noah. Would anyone have more info on the Jewish point of view on this?

A couple other scriptures that I find interesting:

Leviticus 3:17

17 ??It is a statute to time indefinite for YOUR generations, in all YOUR dwelling places: YOU must not eat any fat or any blood at all.??

Seemingly an absolute prohibition, yet note this exception:

Leviticus 7:24-25

24 Now the fat of a body [already] dead and the fat of an animal torn to pieces may be used for anything else conceivable, but YOU must not eat it at all. 25 For anyone eating fat from the beast from which he presents it as an offering made by fire to Jehovah, the soul that eats must be cut off from his people.

WTS comment:

w81 10/15 pp. 30-31 Questions from Readers

Do you see the point? Though they could eat neither blood nor fat, Jehovah said that they could put fat to uses other than in sacrifice. But God did not say that about blood.

This is used to claim that it would be wrong for Christians to put blood to any other use, however the last paragraph of the same article says:

?Accordingly, a farmer today might have to get rid of an unbled carcass, such as a cow that he found dead so that it was no longer possible to drain the blood.?

So it would seem to be very difficult to extract blood in any quantity post-mortem to put to some other use, making it seem fairly obvious why the Law would not specify the same allowance re: blood due to the physical impossibility of doing so.

One use of unbled flesh that Jews found of an animal found dead was to eat it as long they followed the Lev 17 procedure.

26

JW Blood Doctrine Dismembered

by AlanF in

i thought some people might like to see a strictly bible-based dismemberment of the jw blood doctrine.

for some introductory material, see the thread:.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/67949/4.ashx.

shadow

Very interesting posts on scriptures that I have been looking for more information on for quite some time.

Earnest,

It does seem to me also that eating an animal found dead was a matter of purity rather than intrinsically a sin in itself requiring only cleansing. This leads me to the opinion that blood in and of itself was not sacred material, rather it was given special treatment due to what it represented. In fact I believe the most common use of the word blood is actually to symbolize life. Acts 15 seems in harmony with this due to its prohibiting the use of blood as food and showing respect for God when slaughtering an animal (do not kill an animal by strangulation).

You mentioned that you did not think the passage in Lev 17 had anything to do with the blood prohibition. Would you elaborate on this?

Tom,

Thank you for your clarifications. I have gone back and read through some of your older posts. Very interesting. How do you come to have this level of knowledge about Judaism? Do you know of any good reference works that may help others to a greater understanding of the Law shorter than 100 volumes? I have not had much success with Internet searches.

38

Can an ex elder help me please

by orangefatcat in

jw
friends

i have been reading the publication, "pay attention to yourself and to all the flock',

under the subject of the "proper view of disfellowshipped and disassociated persons.

unit 5 (a), it says, " the principle set forth in jesus' words, at matthew 10:34-38 has a bearing on situations involving disfellowshepped or disassociated relatives.

shadow

At least one response from the service department indicated that a person associating with df'd relatives was in danger of losing their privileges (elder, MS, pioneer, etc.) but would not be df'd themselves.

This is from about 2000 or 2001.

26

JW Blood Doctrine Dismembered

by AlanF in

i thought some people might like to see a strictly bible-based dismemberment of the jw blood doctrine.

for some introductory material, see the thread:.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/67949/4.ashx.

shadow

Earnest,

Just wanted to thank you for your response. I think I was confused and connecting the point made about other scholars supporting their position to the idea of eating in ignorance. Have you ever come across anyone else linking this verse to something being done in ignorance?

Is this a deliberate twisting of scripture by WTS to shore up transfusion policy or possibly just a point of view on the correct understanding of the Hebrew?

26

JW Blood Doctrine Dismembered

by AlanF in

i thought some people might like to see a strictly bible-based dismemberment of the jw blood doctrine.

for some introductory material, see the thread:.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/67949/4.ashx.

shadow

Earnest,

I found your comment quite interesting. Are you familiar with the 83 WT QFR on this matter? They put the spin on Lev 17 that for this to apply to a Jew, they must have eaten in ignorance. I have no idea how that would be implied by this scripture. Isn't the context discussing hunting?

Is not the difference between the proselyte and the pagan alien who ate an animal found dead simply this: the proselyte would be required to bathe while the pagan would not.

Also, is the procedure the same as this?

***

Rbi8 Leviticus 15:16-18 ***

16

"?Now in case a man has an emission of semen go out from him, he must then bathe all his flesh in water and be unclean until the evening. 17 And any garment and any skin upon which the emission of semen gets to be must be washed with water and be unclean until the evening.

18

"?As for a woman with whom a man may lie down with an emission of semen, they must bathe in water and be unclean until the evening.

4

BLOOD -- WTS Questions and Sound Answers 2

by Marvin Shilmer in

blood -- wts questions and sound answers 2

*** w69 6/1 326-7 godly respect for life and blood *** .

"some persons may reason that getting a blood transfusion is not actually "eating.

shadow

Good points that are usually so obscure that they escape the notice of most JW's.

It seems to me that the WT does not seem to be entirely opposed to cannibalism.

Another line of 'reasoning' in that same article:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

***

w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions from Readers ***

While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Of course to be a cannibal according to WT policy would not be very easy.

You could not eat the body of a person you found dead because that would be eating unbled meat.

Maybe if extremely fortunate the WT cannibal could come across someone that died in such a way that they bled out incidentally.

Killing someone and then properly bleeding the body would make you a murderer.

It might be allowable if someone else did the killing and bleeding (sort of like leaving donating blood and cutting it up sufficiently to others, eh?)

So this position of WT saying that cannibalism is not scripturally condemned seems to be an untenable justification for organ transplants in any practical sense.

26

JW Blood Doctrine Dismembered

by AlanF in

i thought some people might like to see a strictly bible-based dismemberment of the jw blood doctrine.

for some introductory material, see the thread:.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/67949/4.ashx.

shadow

Another scripture of interest is found at Lev 17.

***

Rbi8 Leviticus 17:13-16 ***

13

"?As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14 For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: "YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off." 15 As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. 16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error.?"

Here is a post from another discussion board on this topic:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Conspicuous by its absence in Acts 15 is any prohibition of eating animals found already dead. This absence is notable inasmuch as anyone eating this meat would of course be eating blood along with the meat. This serves to bolster the argument that draining the blood of an animal killed for food was an act of respect to the Giver of Life and this act is only done by his permission. Since the council included experts on the Law it is hardly tenable to say this omission was an oversight.

So can a case be made that eating such meat is a violation of Christian principles?

*** w75 5/15 300-2 'Eating and Drinking to God's Glory' ***
Note that religious regulations prohibiting certain foods are actually an evidence of a falling away from true Christianity. This means that persons claiming to be Christian but commanding certain dietary restrictions as a required means for gaining divine favor are in reality dishonoring God. How can this be? Did not God?s law to Israel rule out certain foods as unacceptable? . . . .
Hence, for religious organizations of Christendom to impose the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic law, the whole or in part, would mean their denying that the reality belongs to the Christ. They would be acting contrary to God?s ?word? that has sanctified or set apart all things usable for food as acceptable. Religious dietary restrictions other than those contained in the Mosaic law would likewise be in opposition to divine revelation that ?every creation of God is fine? and therefore suitable for food.
The institution of dietary restrictions as a religious duty is not a minor matter. It constitutes rejection of Christian faith and accurate knowledge. It implies that there is something defective in God?s ?word,? that it does not reveal the full scope of what people need to do to gain divine approval and that man-made precepts are therefore needed. The importance of God?s ?word? is minimized and human regulations are elevated. By thus misunderstanding the only standard for judging truth, the Scriptural standard, the door is opened for other apostate teachings. Accordingly, to command obedience to man-made dietary restrictions as a religious duty dishonors God. However, if an informed Christian abstains for the time being in order not to stumble or offend the conscience of a person who feels bound by such dietary rules, he is doing a considerate thing and is looking for the liberating and salvation of a rule-bound person.?1 Cor. 9:19.

HOWEVER, that is exactly what they later do.

*** w83 4/15 30-1 Questions From Readers ***
Now let us carefully examine Leviticus 17:10. It says that no ?man of the house of Israel or some alien resident? should eat blood. Was that because the animal had been killed by a human and so the blood had to be returned to God? To claim such is to read into the verse more than it says. Further, if guilt resulted only if blood was from a creature killed by man, then Deuteronomy 14:21 and Exodus 22:31 would not have forbidden Israelites to eat unbled flesh from animals that were not killed by men. Yet the Israelites clearly knew they could not eat such meat. Ezekiel stated: ?My soul is not a defiled one; neither a body already dead nor a torn animal have I eaten from my youth up.??Ezekiel 4:14; compare 44:31.
Why, then, does Deuteronomy 14:21 say that the ?alien resident? could be sold unbled meat, but Leviticus 17:10 forbids the ?alien resident? to eat blood? Both God?s people and Bible commentators have recognized that the distinction must have been the religious standing of the alien involved. Aid to Bible Understanding (page 51) points out that sometimes the term ?alien resident? meant a person among the Israelites who was not a full proselyte. It appears that this sort of person is meant at Deuteronomy 14:21, a man who was not trying to keep all of God?s laws and who might have his own uses for a carcass considered unclean by Israelites and proselytes. Jewish scholars, too, have offered this explanation.
So, no worshiper of God could eat blood, whether from (or in the flesh of) an animal that had died of itself or from one that was killed by man. Why, then, does Leviticus 17:15 say that eating unbled flesh from such an animal that died of itself or was killed by a beast merely produced uncleanness?
We can find a clue at Leviticus 5:2, which says: ?When a soul touches some unclean thing, whether the dead body of an unclean wild beast . . ., although it has been hidden from him, still he is unclean and has become guilty.? Yes, God acknowledged that an Israelite might err inadvertently. Hence, Leviticus 17:15 can be understood as providing for such an error. For example, if an Israelite ate meat served him and then learned that it was unbled, he was guilty of sin. But because it was inadvertent he could take steps to become clean. This, however, is noteworthy: If he would not take those steps, ?he must then answer for his error.??Leviticus 17:16.
Thus eating unbled flesh was not a trivial matter; it could even result in death. No true worshiper (Israelite or full proselyte alien) could voluntarily eat unbled flesh, no matter if it was from an animal that died of itself, was killed by another animal or was killed by a human. (Numbers 15:30) The apostolic council confirmed this. Writing to Christians making up the spiritual ?Israel of God? it forbade eating that which was strangled, whether the unbled meat was from an animal that died from accidental strangulation or it was from one strangled by a man.?Galatians 6:16; Acts 21:25.

HOW does an animal get accidentally strangled??? Acts 15 confirms what was required of Noah re: blood but the Society adds to it.

IN the first paragraph quoted above they warn against reading into a verse more that it says. Two paragrahs later they do exactly that.

"Why, then, does Leviticus 17:15 say that eating unbled flesh from such an animal that died of itself or was killed by a beast merely produced uncleanness?
We can find a clue at Leviticus 5:2, which says: ?When a soul touches some unclean thing, whether the dead body of an unclean wild beast . . ., although it has been hidden from him, still he is unclean and has become guilty.? Yes, God acknowledged that an Israelite might err inadvertently. Hence, Leviticus 17:15 can be understood as providing for such an error. For example, if an Israelite ate meat served him and then learned that it was unbled, he was guilty of sin. But because it was inadvertent he could take steps to become clean. This, however, is noteworthy: If he would not take those steps, ?he must then answer for his error.??Leviticus 17:16."

WHAT does the scripture actually say?

*** Rbi8 Leviticus 17:13-16 ***

13 ??As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14 For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: ?YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.? 15 As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. 16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error.??

NOW I am not a Hebrew scholar, but it sure seems to me the situation is not about anything hidden at all. The Israelite was out hunting and found an animal already dead and decided to eat it. Nothing about going to someone's house and not knowing the kind of food he was eating. I find it hard to believe that this is actually suggested as a likely scenario. Of course the simple clear understanding of this scripture might cause problems with blood transfusion policy. This 83 WT spin was a change from previous comments.

*** w54 4/1 223 Questions from Readers ***
"How can we harmonize Deuteronomy 14:21 (NW), ?You must not eat any dead body,? and Leviticus 11:40 (NW), ?And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments and he must be unclean until the evening???D. H., Eire.
Actually, there is no disharmony between these two texts. One prohibits eating an animal that died of itself or was found dead, and the other shows the penalty for eating in violation of the prohibition. The mere fact that the eating of a dead body is forbidden does not mean that will never take place. The Law contained prohibitions of many things, but it also contained penalties for violating those prohibitions. The mere fact that a thing was prohibited did not of itself mean it would never be indulged in; hence penalties were set up to give force to the prohibitions. There were prohibitions against stealing, talebearing, adultery, murder, and many other sins of varying magnitude, and penalties of varying severity were fixed by the Law to guide Israel in dealing with violators. So it was in the matter of eating a dead body."

THE following month is more like the 83 WT:

*** w54 5/1 286-7 Questions from Readers ***
? Some think it is wrong to hunt and fish, while others see no wrong in such pursuits. Some who think hunting permissible do contend, however, that the game should be thoroughly bled immediately after it is shot to avoid violating the prohibition of eating blood. This bleeding is not generally done. What is the Scriptural view concerning these matters??A. A., United States.
If the hunter failed to bleed his game properly he was put to death, or ?cut off.? To eat unbled game not only was prohibited to Israelites under the Law, but also is forbidden for Christians: ?Keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things killed without draining their blood and from fornication.? (Acts 15:29; 21:25, NW) Immediately following the instruction to hunters to bleed their game and that to eat blood will mean their death, we read: ?As for any soul that eats a dead body or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or a temporary resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening. Then he must be clean. But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, then he must answer for his iniquity.? (Lev. 17:15, 16, NW) A body that dies of itself or of wounds inflicted by another animal would not be properly drained of blood, and hence was not to be eaten. Penalty for deliberate violation of the commandment to eat no blood is death, but in the last-mentioned case guilt could be erased by a ceremony of purification, which indicates it was a case where the commandment was violated innocently, unknowingly, as might happen when someone purchased or bartered for meat, or when eating as a guest of someone else. Now, as in Israel?s day, one who violates the command concerning blood accidentally, without knowing it, not doing so deliberately, can gain forgiveness by repentance and avoiding a recurrence of the trespass.

WHY do they make the statement that this must have been done unknowingly due to the fact that it required only bathing? Other acts that were done unintentionally had a more stringent requirement.

*** Rbi8 Leviticus 5:14-19 ***

14 And Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: 15 ?In case a soul behaves unfaithfully in that he actually sins by mistake against the holy things of Jehovah, then he must bring as his guilt offering to Jehovah a sound ram from the flock, according to the estimated value in silver shekels, by the shekel of the holy place, as a guilt offering. 16 And he will make compensation for the sin he has committed against the holy place and he will add to it a fifth of it, and he must give it to the priest, that the priest may make an atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and so it must be forgiven him.

17 ?And if a soul sins in that he does do one of all the things that Jehovah commands should not be done, although he did not know it, yet he has become guilty and must answer for his error. 18 And he must bring a sound ram from the flock according to the estimated value, for a guilt offering, to the priest; and the priest must make an atonement for him for his mistake that he committed unintentionally, although he himself did not know it, and so it must be forgiven him. 19 It is a guilt offering. He has positively become guilty against Jehovah.?

IF Acts 15 does not prohibit eating animals found already dead, it is evident that it does not cover all blood in all situations.

29

Governing Buzzards - Part 7 - Did Rutherford have a Mistress?

by Amazing in

jw
friends

governing buzzards ?

changes in religious doctrine, dogma, cannon, practices, liturgy and ritual are common and almost all christians have witnessed this in their denominations ?

including fringe groups like jehovah?s witnesses.

shadow

Sidepoint for sake of accuracy:

Golden Age came before Consolation