The Watchtower are Right About Blood... (page 42)

Fisherman

Cofty, Scripture and Verse.

Your commentary has zero value towards the topic being discussed on this thread.

As a Jewish person, I've pointed out time and again on these threads that the Law was not administered reflexively; that no legal system works that way; that there would be no need for judges if that were the case; that denying the exception is a logical fallacy with a formal Latin name and that it inevitably leads to the miscarriages of justice depicted in Les Miserables.

I've quoted American Law professors, Jewish attorneys, Jewish historians, Rabbis, RAMBAM and last but not least, Jesus of the Bible, who soundly condemned the conservative interpretations of his day as lacking in mercy and missing the whole point of the Law.

All that has been dismissed as irrelevant.

Okay. Fine. I would like to see a shred of evidence for an opposing view. I want to see with legitimate examples that the hard-line approach of Bet Shammai is the correct one.

All I've seen so far is special pleading.

Fisherman

dub if you want to have a name calling match with me start another topic saying that is what you want.

Fisherman

All that has been dismissed as irrelevant. TD

Absolutely not! Your commentary is persuasive, and respected -at least by me.

Only in the subject matter being discussed as to cofty theory explained in his OP, relevance was questioned on this thread.

cofty

Your commentary has zero value towards the topic being discussed on this thread. - Fishy

I doubt if I have ever attempted to hold a conversation with somebody less capable of following an argument.

Lev.17:15 and Deut.14:21 appear to be a contradiction. I have explained how they can reconciled. You now have the same burden.

Here is the question you have ignored many times. Until you answer it you have nothing interesting to say.

Lev.17: 13 & 14 state very clearly that he who hunts an animal for food and does not bleed it will be "cut off".

Verse 15 says that he who eats an animal that dies of itself will be unclean until the evening. The only requirement is to have bath and change clothes.

Why is there a difference if the blood is sacred in the way JWs believe it to be?

Fisherman

Lev.17:15 and Deut.14:21 appear to be a contradiction. I have explained how they can reconciled.

Your explanation is trash

Stop reposting your trash. Scripture and verse please. " you must not eat" -command.

cofty

Fisherman are you actually an apostate fighting a 13 year black-flag campaign?

If so you are doing a heroic job of making the Watchtower look foolish.

Fisherman

Why is there a difference if the blood is sacred in the way JWs believe it to be?

Re: Blood transfusion; Acts:" ...Keep abstaining.."

Cofty argues that such blood was not taken from a slaughtered creature thus contains no symbolic to God life of the person ( as explained in cofty argument on this thread which points out a distinction between 2 sorts of blood. One being sacred and the other not so sacred if it can be eaten with the flesh- according to cofty) TD argues that Acts at the very least is dubious therefore saving a life should not come down to interpretation of a scripture; and if it does as in Acts for example, the interpretation should be towards saving the life. He also argues that obeying God's law should not result in death -but in life! "..so as to live by them.." vs to die by them. And both arguments are for the saving lives using blood transfusions--versus death.

cofty

One being sacred and the other not so sacred according to cofty

Not according to me - according to Lev.17

Verse 13 & 14 states very clearly that he who hunts an animal for food and does not bleed it will be "cut off".

Verse 15 says that he who eats an animal that dies of itself will be unclean until the evening. The only requirement is to have a bath and change clothes.

Why is there a difference if the blood is sacred in the way JWs believe it to be?

Fisherman

Not according to me - according to Lev.17

Lev 17 shows a distinction. Difference in sacredness is cofty conclusion as argued by cofty.

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

Share this