From Noah to Jerusalem: What is: Abstain from Blood?

by Terry 27 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  TD

  There was a television show that my youngest sister watched called 'Sesame Street' and on that show, they would sing a little song that started out like this:

  'One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong.....'

  The differences of interpretation that developed between the Eastern and Western Churches are interesting, but I really think you have to take the Jewish concept of legal hierarchy and toss it out the window entirely to suppose that a high crime like murder would be mentioned in the same breath as the other three items in the Apostolic Decree.

  What problem did that fix? What purpose would that have served?

  To flesh that out a bit: A rift had developed early in the Christian movement and it became divided into a Jewish faction centered around James the Just and a Gentile faction centered around Paul. The Jewish faction were running around telling the Gentiles that they needed to be circumcised and follow the Law.

  The Decree (mostly) mended that rift and allowed the two groups to fellowship together with a bare minimum of burden on the Gentile Christians. All the Gentiles had to do was conform to the requirements of the Ger Toshav (i.e. The alien resident.) Those requirements are even listed in the exact same order in which they appear in the Torah.

  The entire episode leading up to the Decree and afterwards disolves into nonsense under the premise that, 'abstain from blood' is inclusive of a high crime like murder because both the Jewish and Gentile cultures alike already viewed as wrong.

  So how exactly was it a "burden' for Gentile Christians to be requried to abstain from murder? How exactly was this a compromise with the Jewish faction? Was murder a problem for the Gentile Christians? Were they running around murdering?

  James later equated the Decree with Paul's participation in the Nazarite ritual of the Second Temple Period (i.e. People of means defrayed the expenses of poor people who had taken the vow.) Paul was instructed to do this for the express purpose of placating Jewish believers who were zealous for the Law. That the Decree served that same purpose is clear and unambiguous in the context of Acts 21.
• 

  mP

  Terry

  While i wont dispute your sources, none of them cite any part of the Bible. Lots of discussions between rabbis is hardly scriptural, and merely the thoughts of man. My point is this idea of laws of Noah and so on are a complete fabrication, were xians have selected ideas from where ever and whenever to suit some new idea at their convenience.
• 

  Terry

  So how exactly was it a "burden' for Gentile Christians to be requried to abstain from murder? How exactly was this a compromise with the Jewish faction? Was murder a problem for the Gentile Christians? Were they running around murdering?

  I hear what you're saying. My understanding is that Blood Feuds were the biggest problem among tribal people. Somebody way back when killed somebody and the feud gets out of hand because not only is there retaliation, but, there is RE-retaliation going on and on.

  The Jewish prohibitions concerned with Blood were primarily directed against REVENGE killing.

  The congregants didn't want to be looking over their shoulder at Greek gentiles who may have, for example, been "done in" during the Macabbean revolt or the Sicarii uprisings.

  _________________________________________________________

  Terry

  While i wont dispute your sources, none of them cite any part of the Bible. Lots of discussions between rabbis is hardly scriptural, and merely the thoughts of man. My point is this idea of laws of Noah and so on are a complete fabrication, were xians have selected ideas from where ever and whenever to suit some new idea at their convenience.

  Well, all of it---every bit is historical. The idea that something is "scriptural" is dumbfounding. Why? Because, neither Paul nor the recipients of his letters

  ever thought for one moment these writings were on par with SCRIPTURE! It was just like any other letter from any other man of God who claimed

  special numinous responsibility. The Jewish religion is involved in this and the Rabbinical thinkers and writers were experts.

  Having a christian "read into" Jewish writings and obtain better understanding is hubris.

  All we really have is probability to go on. What is the probable meaning of this and that in the historical context.

  I for one, would accept any reasonable idea as long as it wasn't WATCHTOWER doctrine.
• 

  cofty

  Sorry Terry but that seems like a very contrived interpretation of a simple text.
• 

  mP

  Terry:

  Well, all of it---every bit is historical. The idea that something is "scriptural" is dumbfounding. Why? Because, neither Paul nor the recipients of his letters

  ever thought for one moment these writings were on par with SCRIPTURE! It was just like any other letter from any other man of God who claimed

  special numinous responsibility. The Jewish religion is involved in this and the Rabbinical thinkers and writers were experts.

  Having a christian "read into" Jewish writings and obtain better understanding is hubris.

  All we really have is probability to go on. What is the probable meaning of this and that in the historical context.

  I for one, would accept any reasonable idea as long as it wasn't WATCHTOWER doctrine.

  mP->Terry:

  Everything you say is true, but JW insist they only follow scriptural directions and not the thoughts of Rabbis pondering "stuff". Its always amazing just how little of xian religion actually comes from the Bible.
• 

  Terry

  Sorry Terry but that seems like a very contrived interpretation of a simple text.

  Perhaps it is; perhaps it isn't. St.Augustine thought it worth mentioning.
• 

  Terry

  mP->Terry:

  Everything you say is true, but JW insist they only follow scriptural directions and not the thoughts of Rabbis pondering "stuff". Its always amazing just how little of xian religion actually comes from the Bible.

  Eisogesis is 75% of religion. Projecting upon sacred texts what one wants or expects to see is a confirmation bias the imagination is only too eager to affirm.

  Even Pastor Russell thought his own Studies in the Scriptures was more enlightening to the student than the bible itself:)
• 

  mP

  Terry -> mP

  Eisogesis is 75% of religion. Projecting upon sacred texts what one wants or expects to see is a confirmation bias the imagination is only too eager to affirm.

  Even Pastor Russell thought his own Studies in the Scriptures was more enlightening to the student than the bible itself:)

  mP->Terry

  It continues to amaze me just how often this big play continues to work. JW themselves say they only believe in the Bible and yet the vast majority of their beliefs are completely unscriptural or at best completely contrived. Its amazing how they can write books from a scripture that contains only a dozen words.