My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT (page 16)

cofty

Eating an unbled animal found 'already dead' was entirely LEGAL under the Law given through Moses.

Despite thousands of words you have singularly failed to gainsay this simple fact.

It seems my historical critical approach to this topic has not stirred much response. I know not everyone reasons in the same way however, i's my experience debates about definitions and subtleties have the unfortunate effect of elevating an otherwise morally untenable position. The forest is missed for the trees, as it were.

I certainly see the expanded redefinition of the WT and others as a semantic argument not arrived at through straightforward reading the text in context. But more fundamentally, I see it as a strictly sectarian and hence arbitrary matter. Semantic arguments are a favorite of moralists who measure piety by strictness and asceticism. Debating them is only interpreted as a sign of moral weakness. Yet even the most conservative of Muslims and Jews regard the subject as of secondary importance to saving a life based upon their reading of the Torah. It appears the Gospel writers saw Jesus as feeling similarly.

For a modern student of religious studies, the text represents a Proto-Orthodox polemical attempt to revise the story of Xtian beginnings. The purpose of this pericope was twofold, a roundabout refutation of Paulinist positions on sexuality and ceremonial uncleanness and the retrojection of unity between the historically divided branches of Xtianity. Some might add a third purpose, that of supporting a central hierchal church structure. I am not presently convinced this is evidenced by the story details, but it certainly has influenced the translating.

cofty

Really interesting historical context peacefulpete thank you.

Fisherman

entirely LEGAL under the Law

Nothing is entirely legal in any legal system, there are always “catch all” laws. For example, in the US the 1A is governed by time, place and manner and the right for JW to go door to door is restricted by Court decision saying that it also depends upon people feeling safe inside their homes. In ancient Israel anyone deliberately breaking the law was subject to death. Of course it didn’t mean that people were put to death but the law made that provision.

cofty

Fishy stop spouting BS and deal honestly with the data.

You are doing more to prove my point than I am.

Eating an unbled animal found 'already dead' was entirely LEGAL under the Law given through Moses.

Fisherman

cofty, don’t get angry with me. I enjoy having this dialogue with you after so many years.

Eating an unbled animal found 'already dead' was entirely LEGAL under the Law given through Moses.

You keep asserting that but I have already posted my reasons to you why you are mistaken in your view.

cofty

No you haven't. You just keep repeating bald assertions. You have not once in this entire thread dealt directly with the data. Go back and reread the OP and address the facts.

If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening. Anyone who eats some of the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

Eating an unbled animal found 'already dead' was entirely LEGAL under the Law given through Moses.

cofty

If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who ...

touches the carcass ...
eats some of the carcass ...
picks up the carcass ...

... will be unclean till evening.

How could it be any clearer? There was no law against eating an unbled animal found already dead.

Fisherman

Cofty,

You’ve ignored what I’ve said. I also refer you to The Watchtower April 1 1954, Question from Readers. I won’t post the information because wt has new terms of using their copyright material by posting it on social media.

cofty

I have no access to '54 Watchtowers - or any Watchtowers.

Please summarise the specific answer they give to this specific question.

I'm going to guess they say something utterly ridiculous about 'accidentally' eating. Am I right?

You’ve ignored what I’ve said

You haven't said a single word that specifically answers the challenge. Literally NOT ONE WORD.

You have also ignored TD's challenge regarding Acts 15.

If you are resorting to 1954 Watchtowers you are desperate!

If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who ...

touches the carcass ...
eats some of the carcass ...
picks up the carcass ...

... will be unclean till evening.

How could it be any clearer? There was no law against eating an unbled animal found already dead.

My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT

Share this