Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Fisherman

  My intent on this thread has simply been to illustrate the impropriety of lifting one law out of an entire body of law and interpreting it outside of the framework in which it was given.

  It appears to me that in-spite of you stating your intentions as stated above, your posts on this thread do not illustrate that the The OT laws on blood (substance of this thread), or on idolatry, etc. are integrated with the other framework of laws that were given to Israel at Sinai (or any other framework of laws that you might be referring to) and therefore should only and can only be interpreted within the ambit of the related framework. It seems to me that you have not shown that on this thread. Besides that, Christian school of thought disagrees with you and you evidently know and understand xtian theology better (in my opinion) than most "xtians"
  

  Because of the limitations of language, it is not at all unusual for circumstances to create conflicts between two or more individual requirements within any given body of law. This is true in both secular law and Jewish law and I brought up Jesus' reasoning on the Sabbath only to illustrate how those conflicts are ethically resolved.

  Language has its limits in secular law but language did not limit the understanding of God's Word to Israel and the limits of language was not the case in Jesus' reasoning on the Sabbath except that for 400 years (since Nehemiah) there was silence, no Word from Jehovah, no Biblical record of any communication between Jehovah and the Jews which had always been the case since Jehovah spoke to Moses and throughout the Nation's history...... ( Malachi 2:7 . . .For the lips of a priest should safeguard knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth, because he is the messenger of Jehovah of armies. ) And so for 400 years subjugated Israel, having no monarchy and no prophets was not abandoned, they had the Kohanim and Jehovah's Holy Spirit to guide them. And that is why according to Christianity Jehovah's angel broke the silence after 400 years when he spoke to Zechariah-the priest; (not some Pharisee) The Pharisees had usurped the authority of the priests. TD I do not want to go out on a tangent but I would like to point out that every mechanical device even Jewish law (not actually the law but the Jews) needs adjustment from time to time, and after 400 years it should be expected that Israel needed as usual- adjustment FROM GOD: thus came Jesus the talking horse.

  God has told you in plain and simple, black and white, clear and unambiguous, easy to understand terms that you cannot cause the death of an innocent human being. This includes acts of omission as well as commission.

  Intentionally or not, your posts on this thread allude to Rabbinical application of Leviticus 18:5 and Numbers 15:32.

  WT does not see it like that in your statement quoted above when it apples to BT.
  

  
  

  Please don't reflexively reply, "God's Law on Blood."

  I did not do that. I put quotation marks in front of the wt teaching to show that that is what the wt interprets (that is where the limit of language that you have pointed out applies and requires or warrants a talking horse) about blood transfusions but not that such teaching ( BT= violating God's Law) has been established as such in our discussion, that is another subject matter although I agree your pointing this out is relevant in our discussion, however, your posts on this thread assume that it is God's Law and focus on application, and my response to you also is in the context of application assume that it is God's Law. If blood transfusions do not violate God's law then any discussion about the application of a nonexistent law is moot.

  IT is late. I am tired.
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  TD

  Fisherman,
  

  It appears to me that in-spite of you stating your intentions as stated above, your posts on this thread do not illustrate that the The OT laws on blood (substance of this thread), or on idolatry, etc. are integrated with the other framework of laws that were given to Israel at Sinai (or any other framework of laws that you might be referring to) and therefore should only and can only be interpreted within the ambit of the related framework.

  Apologies, Fisherman. I did not realize that was necessary. Jehovah's Witnesses (via church literature) interpret the Torah's requirements on blood in the context of sacrifice; interpret sacrifice in the context of atonement; interpret atonement under the context of Messianic prophecy; interpret Messianic prophecy in the context of Jesus' sacrifice; interpret Jesus sacrifice in the context of the Ransom. Based on that concatenation it is inferred that any use of blood not specifically set forth elsewhere in the Torah should be understood as forbidden and an act of disrespect towards the Ransom.

  Is the cultural and contextual backdrop of the Torah's requirements on blood only relevant when it is incorporated into an argument in support of the JW position or are the rest of us allowed to incorporate it into our reasoning as well? Is the flimsiness of this concatenation sacrosanct or am I allowed to point it out?

  Language has its limits in secular law but language did not limit the understanding of God's Word to Israel and the limits of language was not the case in Jesus' reasoning on the Sabbath except that for 400 years (since Nehemiah) there was silence,

  The controversy stories are actually one of the better illustrations of the modern day axiom that, "What the law says is not necessarily what the law means." --So much so that the misconception that Jesus broke the Sabbath is rampant among fundamentalist Christians to the point where they sometimes seem to forget that the idea invalidates their teaching that Jesus actually fulfilled the Law by keeping it perfectly.

  The fact that it is impossible to state a law applicable to every conceivable situation is indeed a limitation of language.

  
  

  Intentionally or not, your posts on this thread allude to Rabbinical application of Leviticus 18:5 and Numbers 15:32.

  I acknowledge that and if I've been less than forthright about it, I apologize. I stated early on in this thread that one's starting assumptions about the purpose of any given law will affect their interpretation, sometimes in negative ways. I also pointed out that Jesus of the Bible interpreted the Law along the same lines. Surely that carries some weight with Jehovah's Witnesses (?)

  
  

  I did not do that. I put quotation marks in front of the wt teaching to show that that is what the wt interprets...If blood transfusions do not violate God's law then any discussion about the application of a nonexistent law is moot.

  I appreciate the academic detachment here. --And I mean that most sincerely. Please allow me to top off your wine glass.
  

  My intent was not to debate the validity of whatever equivalency might exist between the acts of consumption and transfusion. My intent was only to point out that the lack of a demonstrable equivalency would be unethical. Direct commands from God are only contravened by other direct commands from God. From Uzzah to King Saul, everyone who thought they could ignore this fact was severely punished.

  If an equivalency between consumption and transfusion cannot be established, than God' requirement to preserve life (Which JW's recognize via the concept of "bloodguilt.") is being contravened not by some other command God has given, but by human interpretation on what the prohibitions against eating blood might possible have meant in the context of 20th century medicine. That is a huge distinction.
  

  If I'm being unclear here, I would be happy to elaborate. I would not bother to discuss this if I did not think highly of you.
• 

  myelaine

  dear David_Jay...

  I sense I've touched a nerve. I didn't "demand" answers, it was you that asked questions with an ultimatum. I'm sorry that you're unable to see the truth in my answers about the food laws not changing. They really haven't.

  In the account in acts, especially, we can see that God was clearly not talking about changing unclean food to clean. When the apostle said the God had told him to "kill, eat"...the same kind of language is used in rev. 19:17-18. It is my belief that since God was speaking to peter in the context of evangelizing to nations...I believe that a merciful God will bring many into communion with Himself. Mighty men and those who lift and carry them along. I think it's gonna be awesome...if I don't have to eat them.
• 

  myelaine

  
  

  Anyhoo...

  Jesus said to His disciples to eat of Him to come in to communion with Him. He told peter to "kill, eat" that the jews would be open to communion with gentiles and in like manner with the "fall of babylon" comes the communion of believers with new believers (eat! rev. 19:17-18) within the context of the outpouring of the Spirit on disciples of Christ for the work of evangelizing, once again. Amen!

  The mind, will and purpose of God will be realized again as it was on mt. Sinai and at pentecost. *le sigh*

  love michelle
• 

  David_Jay

  Myelaine,

  You didn't touch a nerve. If you cannot figure out why I stopped conversing with you, then nothing I can say will help, and I am not going to try. Apparently you will have to come to this realization on your own.
• 

  myelaine

  Oh...I read what you said, David_Jay. I know why you've stopped talking to me. Cuz you're going to be like Jesus when He was opposed by the pharisees...because my answers didn't meet with your approval.

  (you see, the pharisees were trying to avoid answering the question because they wanted to avoid something. I was not. I legitimately don't know the answer to your question)

  xo
• 

  Fisherman

  Apologies, Fisherman. I did not realize that was necessary. Jehovah's Witnesses (via church literature) interpret the Torah's requirements on blood in the context of sacrifice; interpret sacrifice in the context of atonement; interpret atonement under the context of Messianic prophecy; interpret Messianic prophecy in the context of Jesus' sacrifice; interpret Jesus sacrifice in the context of the Ransom. Based on that concatenation it is inferred that any use of blood not specifically set forth elsewhere in the Torah should be understood as forbidden and an act of disrespect towards the Ransom.

  TD, your post above only represents your view about WT teachings. Your view about WT teachings, however,does not truly represent WT teachings and neither does your view posted above establish that what you feel about WT teachings is actually the case. Take for example your statement about WT interpretation of sacrifice. Here is what the Insight Book says about sacrifice not in the context of atonement:

  *** it-2 p. 525 Offerings ***
  From early times men have presented offerings to God. In the first recorded instance, Adam’s oldest son Cain presented some fruits of the ground, and Adam’s younger son Abel, the firstlings of his flock. Evidently the attitudes and motives of the two brothers were different, for God approved Abel’s offering but looked with disfavor on Cain’s.
  *** it-2 p. 525 Offerings ***
  In Patriarchal Society. The family head Noah, on coming out of the ark, offered a thanksgiving sacrifice to Jehovah that was “restful” (soothing, tranquilizing), after which Jehovah made the “rainbow” covenant with Noah and his offspring

  *** it-2 p. 526 Offerings ***
  Communion offerings (or peace offerings). Communion offerings acceptable to Jehovah denoted peace with him. The worshiper and his household partook (in the courtyard of the tabernacle; according to tradition, booths were set up around the inside of the curtain surrounding the courtyard; in the temple, dining rooms were provided). The officiating priest received a portion

  The fact that it is impossible to state a law applicable to every conceivable situation is indeed a limitation of language.

  Secular law yes- man is the judge. Divine law no because God is the judge, and Jehovah was integrated into the Torah, and God communicated with Israel: The patriarchs, the judges, the kings, the neviim, the priests (but not the Rabbis.) What Jesus pointed out was that the jewish clergy of his day was wicked, the heart, the motive, the intention, and not that the academics of the law was the case.. His reasoning on the the Sabbath was mostly if not all in his own defense from those who were looking for wicked reasons to convict him. The wt points out that pure worship became contaminated with heathen philosophy. With Israel it was not a problem with the limit of language: Is there no God in Israel-sort of speak!
  

  acknowledge that and if I've been less than forthright about it, I apologize. I stated early on in this thread that one's starting assumptions about the purpose of any given law will affect their interpretation.

  I understand your reasoning.
  

  If an equivalency between consumption and transfusion cannot be established,....

  A talking horse is needed to unlimit language. Academically speaking, life must be preserved to the extent that people should also have the right decide for themselves.

  The preservation of the lives of the Jews from the coffin depends upon Caesar up to this day and not upon salvation from Jehovah. JW theology is different, WT position is not to break God's Laws (given any established law) and trust God for survival-live or die.
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  This thread is not about whether JW belief is the case but that the extent of of obedience to God's law has its limits: survival, and the wt does not view it like that.
  

  
  
• 

  TD

  Fisherman,

  TD, your post above only represents your view about WT teachings. Your view about WT teachings, however,does not truly represent WT teachings and neither does your view posted above establish that what you feel about WT teachings is actually the case.

  Do you disagree with the end assertion that, "...it is inferred that any use of blood not specifically set forth elsewhere in the Torah should be understood as forbidden and an act of disrespect towards the Ransom."
  

  Secular law yes- man is the judge. Divine law no because God is the judge,

  I'm confused. If I'm understanding correctly, you don't seem to believe that a conflict between two or more of God's requirements can be created by unique circumstances. (?)

  It's not a popular viewpoint here, but I've argued many times that JW's are not heartless people who don't recognize the moral knife-edge of a medical emergency involving a minor child and blood. --On one hand, they want to be obedient to God's "law" on blood, but on the other hand, they recognize that needlessly causing the death of a child would result in bloodguilt.

  Am I wrong here?

  How else would you explain the fact that since 1958 the JW parent organization has advanced four separate and distinct rationales for the allowance of fractions and that each time the scope of prohibited preparations and procedures has shifted, sometimes significantly?

  How would you interpret those changes except as an attempt to humanely apply the spirit of the law to a situation that could not possibly have been addressed in the language of the time? How do you say, "gamma globulin" in ancient Hebrew? :-)

  I'm not trying to be flippant, but it seems to me that the JW's themselves are living proof of the limitations of language. It is by its very nature, a reflection of the knowledge and perceptions at any given moment.
• 

  TD

  Fisherman,

  TD, your post above only represents your view about WT teachings. Your view about WT teachings, however,does not truly represent WT teachings and neither does your view posted above establish that what you feel about WT teachings is actually the case. Take for example your statement about WT interpretation of sacrifice. Here is what the Insight Book says about sacrifice not in the context of atonement...

  (Now, that I am home with access to my library.....)

  With deep respect, my statement was a paraphrase of the argument presented in the June 15th, 2004 issue of The Watchtower. In the article, Rightly Value Your Gift Of Life, the progression of thought which I described is explicitly laid out.

  Animal sacrifice in the context of atonement:
  

  "Jehovah provided more details about life and blood when he gave Israel the Law code. In the process, he took a further step in the outworking of his purpose. You probably know that the Law called for offerings to God, such as grain, oil, and wine. (Leviticus 2:1-4; 23:13; Numbers 15:1-5) There were also animal sacrifices. God said of these: “The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it."
  

  Atonement under the Law in the context of Messianic prophecy:
  

  "The Law was actually pointing to something vastly more effective in accomplishing God’s will. Paul asked: “Why, then, the Law?” He answered: “It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator [Moses].” (Galatians 3:19) Similarly, Paul wrote: “The Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things.”—Hebrews 10:1."

  Messianic prophecy in the context of Jesus' sacrifice and the Ransom

  "The reality centered on the death of Jesus Christ. You know that Jesus was tortured and impaled. He died like a criminal. Paul wrote: “Christ, while we were yet weak, died for ungodly men at the appointed time. . . . God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:6, 8) In dying for us, Christ provided a ransom to cover our sins. That ransom is at the core of the Christian message. (Matthew 20:28; John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 15:3; "

  As I stated, based on this concatenation it is inferred that any use of blood not specifically set forth elsewhere in the Torah should be understood as forbidden...
  

  "The Creator chose to view blood as having an elevated significance, reserving it for one special use that could save many lives. It was to play a vital role in covering sins (atonement). So under the Law, the only God-authorized use of blood was on the altar to make atonement for the lives of the Israelites, who were seeking Jehovah’s forgiveness."
  
  ...and [by extension] an act of disrespect towards the Ransom:
  

  "Clearly, blood has a special meaning in God’s eyes. It should in ours too. The Creator, who is concerned about life, has a right to restrict what humans do with blood. In his great concern even about our life, he determined to reserve blood for use in one highly important way, the only way that makes everlasting life possible. That way involved Jesus’ precious blood."

  I understand that this article is now twelve years old, but in a slightly more condensed form, the same argument also appears in the publication, What Does The Bible Really Teach, which is current in the JW community.