Hmmm...I am sure these same authors would deny that the Pharisees loved the highest places in the synagogue, thought themselves better than others and refused to lift a finger to help the poor. Would they also deny that the Pharisees wanted Jesus eliminated?
What is the current policy on blood?
It's important not to confuse the various Jewish sects and the factions within them.
The Pharisees clearly considered Jesus to be one of their own (It was forbidden, for example for them to dine with anyone outside of their order) and it was actually the Pharisees who warn Jesus of Herod's intent to kill him.
I have posed the question to Witnesses: "knowing that blood is probably 75% water, what if you filtered, centrifuges, whatever, a pint of blood until all that was left was clear water. Would you drink that water?" The ones that didn't get befuzzled said no.
That seems somewhat overly righteous. I asked what if they were dying of thirst... still no.
I think that when WT says that something is a "conscience matter" they tilt the table so that only the "weaker ones" would come closer to doing it.
Who do you believe wanted Jesus dead and why?
I would say the temple priests and members of the Sanhedrin would have been very high on the list.
The tie-in to this thread is that it was Pharisee followers of Jesus (Of which James appears to have been affliated with) who began teaching that Gentile converts must be circumcised and observe the Law.
The resolution to this conflict; the Apostolic Decree is what the JW's base their prohibition against transfusion medicine on.
Well TD, if the Jewish authors are correct, then the apostles or both Jesus and the apostles were false teachers...which would bring the reliability of the entire New Testament into question.
It is interesting though that Paul, a Pharisee of Pharisees, prior to his conversion seemed to hate Christian's as much as the other religious factions of the day. I really don't think that there was too much difference in terms of attitudes towards Christ and Christians back then.
Since modern Judaism is an outgrowth of Phaisaic teachings, I can understand the desire to paint the Pharisees contemporary with Christ in a positive light.
none, weren' they told to make always personal decisions, only being allowed to ask for spiritual assistance. So it would be wise to follow there spiritual assistents without causing public sensation or eclat and shaking off the yoke of responsibiliy
Wonder, Not really. Yes, WT always puts the ball in your court by saying that something is a personal matter. But after that it becomes a congregation matter if the personal matter conflicts with core belief. It's just sort of a mushy core these days when it comes to blood. There are a couple of concise replies on this thread as to where the WT stands these days.
I can understand the desire to paint the Pharisees contemporary with Christ in a positive light.
---That may well be true, but let's be fair.
The disagreement here is between what historical sources (Including the Bible itself) and modern Bible scholarship (Jewish and Christian alike) tells us about the Pharisees versus the Fundamentalist/ Protestant stereotype (Which many of you were taught as JW's)
But be that as it may, I must say that Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees is rather scathing throughout the gospels. The whole of Matthew 23 for example deals with the Pharisees. I wonder how modern liberal Bible scholarship can embrace such passages without denying their authenticity.