Without a clear explanation of your specific point relating to this topic, you are wasting space.
Please explain, and state your point clearly.
What a seeming trifle (to some) to eat a dead animal.
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Fisherman
-
cofty
What a seeming trifle (to some) to eat a dead animal.
Eating an unbled animal that had been found already dead was a relatively trifling matter.
Having bath and changing your clothes isn't a big deal.
"And if any animal which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening. He who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. He also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening". - Lev.11:38,39
-
SAHS
“Finkelstein”: “The JWS intermingling with the old Hebraic law of abstaining from blood, goes onto the ridiculous on many levels.”
“cofty”: “The onus is 100% on JWs and JW sympathisers to show beyond all doubt that allowing a child to die rather than permit a blood transfusion is clearly demanded in scripture.. . . At the very least any honest person would have to admit there may be more to the question of blood than they had previously thought. Resorting to ridiculous excuses like saying the verse was talking about "inadvertently" eating a dead animal, and approving of risking a child's life on that basis, is shameful.”
Both those observations are most succinct and absolutely right on the money! Definitely, and emphatically, two thumbs up for each! Captain Obvious of those Hotels-dot-com commercials couldn’t have put it any clearer.
-
defender of truth
Fisherman has not responded to 1 Samuel 14:32. Perhaps he's embarassed that I found a verse where blood was eaten and nobody got 'cut off'.
So, to recap..
1) Blood only had to be poured out as a sacrificial offering after a life had been taken.
Blood from a live animal was never used in a sacrifice.
2) The law did not require that anyone eating any blood, in any circumstance, was to be declared permanently unclean and cut off from the people.
Examples of exceptions have been given.
3) Uncleanness under the Law was a temporary condition that could be changed once a person took the necessary steps. An act that made someone 'unclean' did not have to be sinful.
Uncleanness was unavoidable.
"From First Samuel 14:31-35 it may be deduced that “eating with the blood” means eating meat without first pouring out the blood before God, normally on an altar."
"What Was Done about Uncleanness
These regulations imply that one should avoid ceremonial impurity if possible, but the nature of the rules given above shows that often this was, even by natural biological processes, impossible. Everyone became unclean from time to time. Periodic states of uncleanness were unavoidable.
Where contraction of impurity occurred, it was obligatory that the unclean person avoid that which is holy and take steps, involving the rituals for disposal of impurity, to return to a state of cleanness."
"Uncleanness and the danger pertaining thereto lingered [only] upon those who did not take the necessary steps to be purified (Numbers 19:12-13; Leviticus 17:16)." -
Marvin Shilmer
Eating an unbled animal that had been found already dead was a relatively trifling matter.
And, I'll add, a matter that has no penalty attached to it. The sole resulting penalty mentioned is for not washing as required; not eating the unbled carcass found dead.
-
SAHS
“EdenOne”: “The case of Jonathan and his men is interesting because it demonstrated a gray area - just how much time should one wait after slaughtering an animal before one could assume it had bled enough to be considered kosher? Some, like Saul, thought not enough time had passed. Others had a more liberal approach, interpreting the Law in a way that letting some blood to be poured into the ground was enough to respect the spirit of the Law. Eventually this interpretation prevailed, and Jonathan and his men not only weren't executed, no mention is made that they became "unclean".”
That brings up quite an interesting point: Just how much blood needed to be poured out, and just how soon after slaughtering did it have to be poured out? Here’s a little analogy: Some years ago I observed an old brother supposedly of the anointed remnant (since deceased) partaking of the emblems at the Memorial. I clearly remember him partaking of the wine, as he was standing on the platform at the time, as I think he was asked to give the prayer over that particular part of the observance. Anyway, the point is that, like all the other anointed partakers, he just took a good sip or two, and that was sufficiently enough to accomplish the act of publicly taking that emblem. Now, he didn’t compulsively suck every last little drop from the glass and then drink another glass or two (he wasn’t Franklin Rutherford!), and he didn’t have to, as just a sip or two was sufficient – that is, sufficient to “respect the spirit of” the act being performed.
Now, how does this relate to the necessary requirements under the ancient Mosaic Law regarding the sanctity of blood? Simple. In pouring out just a little token amount of blood – at least when that option would have been available as with an animal having been freshly slaughtered and able to have been bled before the heart stopped pumping and the blood started to coagulate – and, similarly, in the case of an anointed taking just a sip of the Memorial wine, in both those examples, what would be required as a “sufficient” requirement to effect observing and respecting “the spirit of,” or the “essence” of, the law or principle of the occasions would be a simple token gesture.
It just makes reasonable sense – not every little drop nor absolutely immediately would be required, but, simply, just to pour out whatever small quantity of blood that would be considered a token gesture of respect for “the spirit of the Law,” at least in the case of an animal killed recently enough to be physically able to be bled at the time. After all, you would think that a supposedly all-wise God would show some level of reasonableness – in line with the essence of Philippians 4:5, which admonishes: “Let your reasonableness become known to all men.”
-
defender of truth
3) Uncleanness under the Law was a temporary condition that could be changed once a person took the necessary steps. An act that made someone 'unclean' did not have to be [a sin].
I apologise, I'm very tired tonight. This is the wording I should have used to convey the intent of my post. (Don't want some picky person to take that the wrong way and point out that we are all sinful, and all acts are sinful.)
As Cofty pointed out, having sex with your wife is not a sin.
-
william draper
Correction about Johnathan eating non bleed meat , and King Saul set to kill him . Johnathan saw honey and partake of it , not knowing of his Fathers decree , others ate meat which they did not drain the blood , ALL THE PEOPLE SPOKE UP FOR JOHNATHAN thus saving him from death , all that is said regarding the meat that was eaten , without draining the blood was that the men should bring their animal to a certain area and do things properly , there doesn't appear to have been any penalty imposed upon any for this . 1ST SAMUEL ch 14 -
defender of truth
Bttt. Interesting thread. You may be able to use some of these points with JW friends or family.. -
smiddy
Excellent points made here
smiddy