What Does the Watchtower Really Teach?

cameo-d

Does the WT teach that...

"the only proper use of blood is for sacrifice" ?

Have they ever put those exact words into print?

blondie

*** 2005 Bible Teach book chap. 13 pp. 131-132 A Godly View of Life ***

THE ONLY PROPER USE OF BLOOD

The Mosaic Law emphasized the one proper use of blood. Regarding the worship required of the ancient Israelites, Jehovah commanded: "The soul [or, life] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement." (Leviticus 17:11) When the Israelites sinned, they could obtain forgiveness by offering an animal and having some of its blood put on the altar at the tabernacle or later at God’s temple. The only proper use of blood was in such sacrifices.

*** w61 9/15 p. 560 par. 2 Using Life in Harmony with the Will of God ***Faithful servants of God recognized that the pouring out of the lifeblood of animals in sacrifice to Jehovah was God’s will, and Noah, Abraham and others are mentioned in the Bible as having done so. (Gen. 8:20; 22:13) When their offspring, the Israelites, were gathered at the foot of Mount Sinai, where they were organized as a nation, Jehovah God told them in unmistakable language that there is only one proper use to which the shed blood of any creature can be put. He said: "I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it." (Lev. 17:11) Since the blood is so intimately involved in the life processes, and since sin leads to loss of life, God requires as a sacrifice in atonement for sin that which represents life, namely, the blood. "Unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place."—Heb. 9:22.

*** w50 5/1 p. 143 Letter ***At 1 Corinthians 9:9, 10 Paul says: "Is it about the oxen that God is concerned? Is he not clearly speaking in our interests? Of course this law [of Moses] was written in our interests." (AnAmericanTranslation) And so we ask you, If God considered the blood of lower animals so sacred that he forbade the transferring of their blood from their bodies into the human system, does he consider the blood of the higher creature man less sacred so that it can be transferred from one system to another with impunity? God confined the proper use of the blood of animal sacrifices to the altar for the purpose of atonement or propitiation of sins, to typify that Jesus’ blood would likewise be confined to the spiritual altar for the purging of mankind’s sins; and all the Christian Greek Scriptures bear this fact out

cameo-d

I hoped I would hear from you, Blondie. You're really quick on the draw! Thank you.

WT quote:

"The Mosaic Law emphasized the one proper use of blood"

By this comment, does WT advocate that they are in agreement with upholding Mosaic law of blood sacrifice?

WT quote:

" God requires as a sacrifice in atonement for sin that which represents life, namely, the blood. "Unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place."—Heb. 9:22."

The word "requires" is present tense, active.

Does this imply that WT would uphold the necessity of blood sacrifice in this day and age?

Some xtian doctrines are beginning to teach that "Christians have neglected those ancient observances, thinking that they are limited to Judaism or were finished at the cross."

Some of their doctrines are beginning to sound very much like the WT doctrine that christ only mediates for a select group. It is being said that the blood of Jesus did not cancel sin nor do away with the law. "God did not plan on giving a free pass for sin".

Construction of "THE" sacrificial altar was just started last week in Israel, and the intentions to reinstate the practice of blood sacrifices are in the works and have been for some time.

According to the above stand that WT takes, does this mean they would sanction the return to blood sacrifices?

cameo-d

" God requires as a sacrifice in atonement for sin that which represents life, namely, the blood. "Unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place."—Heb. 9:22."

The word "requires" is present tense, active.

Does this imply that WT would uphold the necessity of blood sacrifice in this day and age?

Some xtian doctrines are beginning to teach that "Christians have neglected those ancient observances, thinking that they are limited to Judaism or were finished at the cross."

Some of their doctrines are beginning to sound very much like the WT doctrine that christ only mediates for a select group. It is being said that the blood of Jesus did not cancel sin nor do away with the law. "God did not plan on giving a free pass for sin".

Construction of "THE" sacrificial altar was just started last week in Israel, and the intentions to reinstate the practice of blood sacrifices are in the works and have been for some time.

According to the above stand that WT takes, does this mean they would sanction the return to blood sacrifices?

undercover

Nice to see a modern quote about "the only proper use of blood". If the principle behind the sanctity of blood is still intact (principles of the Law being something that the WTS loves to rely on), then wouldn't the use of blood fractions be in violation of that principle?

To make fractions available, one has to take the blood, store it, ship it, break it down (however they do it), and store it again until ready to use. Obviously this is not a proper use.

When the Society started allowing fractions, they really shot themselves in the foot. If they had held to a complete ban, they could justify it under this sanctity clause. Like the original blood card said, "No blood, any shape or form" but by allowing parts of blood to be used, they invalidated their own stand on the proper use of blood.

blondie

cameo-d, I am surprised that you asked if a Christian is required to give a blood sacrifice today (or even in the first century). The final and superior sacrifice was Jesus' blood and what animal or imperfect human could top that? And Jesus' sacrifice is eternal not needing a replacement. (just what I get from reading the Bible)

You have to read the NT more.

Blondie

cameo-d

Blondie: "cameo-d, I am surprised that you asked if a Christian is required to give a blood sacrifice today (or even in the first century). "

Blondie, I am not asking that at all!

This is not about me.

I don't think you all are getting what I am trying to say!

The doctrines in the churches are going through subtle changes, just the same way that WT presents twisted new light.

I am seeing christian literature stating that Jesus did not "die for everyone" and that his death did not cancel the sin or the law.

On top of that, the sacrificial altar which is to be placed in the Third Temple is already underway. The plan is to reinstate blood sacrifice.

My question is this:

According to the above WT quote : "The Mosaic Law emphasized the one proper use of blood"

By this comment, does WT advocate that they are in agreement with upholding this Mosaic Law?

The following WT statement citing Hebrews "God requires as a sacrifice...the blood" implies that this is still a requirement, albeit neglected.

(NO I do not go for these blood rituals. But something creepy is coming...)

blondie

cameo-d, there are so many large and small religions all with their own interpretation, it would take more time than I have or care to to track. The WTS is all I concentrate on. What other religions do, has little to do with the WTS, believe me.

leavingwt

JWs accept blood fractions, including hemoglobin. Therefore, they use blood to save lives.

Of course, they'll also be able to explain this away and tell you how this is "not blood", cause for God's sake, man, "we don't take blood".

cameo-d

quote:

In actuality, like that of the Aztecs, the Jewish priesthood was feared for its sacrifices and cannibalistic ritual practices.

This fear was the result of frequent sacrifices of huge numbers of animals.

Imagine the butchery! The priest/cohen drenched in blood, with his elbows in entrails, splattering the blood all over the "audience" or congregation, as it were.

"Hey, if you don't listen to us," the priest says; in effect, "this is what we'll do to you."

While most people think of "baptism" as being either sprinkled with or immersed in water, it was also common to baptize people with the blood of a sacrificed animal or human, the former of which is overtly reflected in biblical texts.

As Dujardin says in Ancient History of the God Jesus: "Often in the sacrifices of expiation the blood of the victim was sprinkled upon the heads of those present, according to the rite of Exodus xxiv. 8, where 'Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you.'"

This endless need for the god to be propitiated by blood is also reflected in the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews: "Indeed, under law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (Heb. 9:22) The Epistle to the Hebrews also relates to the sacred king sacrifice.

http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/warritual.html

Even after the murder of Jesus, Paul continued to uphold the practice of ritual sacrifice of animals in the Temple. (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/176888/1/Paul-Did-Not-Accept-Jesus-as-Sacrifice-of-Salvation)

Animal sacrifice was instituted in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), a minor Latter Day Saint faction founded by James J. Strang in 1844

What Does the Watchtower Really Teach?

Share this