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

by David_Jay 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Fisherman

  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.

  OK, lets backup a little bit.

  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.

  Since the context of this thread is WT interpretation of BIble laws on blood, you have not shown that Bible laws on blood as wt sees it should not be taken out of the framework in which it is was given.

  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?

  Jehovah's Witnesses (via church literature) interpret the Torah's requirements on blood in the context of sacrifice;

  So does the Torah. and the NT
  

  interpret sacrifice in the context of atonement

  So does the Torah. and the NT
  

  interpret sacrifice in the context of atonement

  So does the Torah. and the NT

  interpret atonement under the context of Messianic prophecy

  So does the NT

  interpret Messianic prophecy in the context of Jesus' sacrifice

  So does the NT

  interpret Jesus sacrifice in the context of the Ransom

  So does the NT

  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.

  The above statement does not truly represent wt teachings because wt position on blood transfusion is based upon the application of BIble laws on blood and not based upon what they believe is the significance of the laws on blood. So, it is not actually based on what you describe as a concatenation that WT teaches that BT violate God's Law. The related "concatenation" which evidently was meant to allude to the wt literature you latter posted attempts to explain why the law makes sense but the reason for wt position is because they figure that God's law as they see it should be applied to BT, and is not a conclusion based upon a concatenation.

  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. (?)

  I am sure that you agree that in ancient Israel language was never a problem because all they had to do at that time was to simply to ask God. The reason they got into trouble was because either they did not ask God or their motive was bad and not because they did not understand with their mind.

  Suppose that a fetus was harming its mother; according to modern Jewish law, a fetus (an unborn developing human creature) becomes an intruder when it threatens the life of its mother and an abortion to save the mother is allowed. WT teaches that taking the human life is not allowed by God. In our modern time, how does one actually know what God requires if or when God is silent. Wt has claimed in their literature that Jehovah God communicates with the wt. Un-like the holy rollers, JW also claim to experience clear convincing evidence in their lives. BT are not like the miraculous healings that the NT records that Jesus performed on on the Sabbath- but have backfired and I can personally attest to cases that resulted in devastating infection of the liver. Medically speaking, when the other option is certain death, some people would choose to risk infection and whatever else because under such extreme circumstances the benefits (probable survival) outweigh the risks (possible or certain death.) But the mental attitude of a Christian is not based upon survival but based upon the clear convincing evidence of their relationship with God. Would a JW if faced with death commit idolatry, go to war or break any of God's laws? Out of weakness , yes, and maybe cave in faced with torture but not out of fear. JW survival is not based upon breaking God's Law.

  Many of the laws in the Torah incur the penalty of death if deliberately violated (concocting anointing oil for personal use for example.) That is a hefty fine to pay; mixing a couple of ingredients to manufacture an object is more valuable to God than life. Also, in the Bible, it was not ok to break God's law, and a person was required to be executed for deliberately breaking God's law, Obedience to God's law was more important to God than life.

  In principle and in theology JW is the best because JW survival depends on Jehovah. The big question for JW is: does God require you personally to say no to a BT even in an emergency?, and how do you know for sure?
  
• 

  Fisherman

  The Torah tells us that after the Children of Israel were freed from the slavery of Egypt, they arrived at Mount Sinai, where Moses received the Torah from God.1. Imagine Moses’ astonishment when he descended the mountain with the holy tablets and found the Israelites dancing in reverence and awe around the Golden Calf. 2 Moses does not call on God to smite the undeserving idol-worshipers. 3 Instead, he smashes the tablets on the ground.

  What does this act signify? It suggests to me that Moses understands that revealed law itself would become an idol, an excuse to relinquish what is most precious in us – our moral autonomy.

  What we have here is not a story of revelation, but a story of the dangers of revelation. Moses understood that the weakness we have for dogmatic thinking and the longing for safe truths – the same flaws that had led the Israelites to the Golden Calf – would always hinder the flourishing of a moral society. What was needed was not to exchange the slavery of the body for the slavery of the mind, but instead to create a tradition alive with questions and debate and glorious differences of opinion.

  Following his audacious act, Moses ascends the mountain again and, after what must have been an awkward conversation, God tells Moses to write his own tablets. Notably, whereas the first tablets were “inscribed by the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18), God instructs Moses to carve out the second tablets himself: “Write for yourself (ktav-lecha) these commandments, for in accordance with these commandments I make a covenant with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27). These human-wrought tablets become the law that forms the heart of the Hebrew Bible.

  After Moses dies, we read in the final lines of the Bible: In the valley of Moab, “No one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses performed in the sight of all Israel” (Deuteronomy 34:10-12). Which awesome deeds? The text does not say. However, the medieval commentator Rashi, quoting earlier sources, states, “This refers to the fact that Moses’ heart inspired him to break the tablets…and the Holy Blessed One concurred.”

  What a bunch of Bolony. The good doctor went to med school but seems to me that he never learned to distinguish Rashi from the text of the Torah.
  

  1. Imagine Moses’ astonishment when he descended the mountain with the holy tablets and found the Israelites dancing in reverence and awe around the Golden Calf.

  Moses should not have been astonished because God told him BEFORE descending -Ex 32:7-10

  2 Moses does not call on God to smite the undeserving idol-worshipers.

  How could he when he knew about it beforehand and already had gotten God to reconsider., Ex 32:11-15

  3 Instead, he smashes the tablets on the ground.

  What does this act signify? It suggests to me that Moses understands that revealed law itself would become an idol, an excuse to relinquish what is most precious in us – our moral autonomy.

  That ain't what Moses said. Deut 9:16,17 Also Exodus 32:19

  God tells Moses to write his own tablets. Notably, whereas the first tablets were “inscribed by the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18), God instructs Moses to carve out the second tablets himself:

  The good doctor is confused.. God also wrote the second set of tablets with his finger. Deut 10:1-5 and compare Exodus 34:27 with Ex 24:3,4, Deut 31:9, Deut 31:11

  I was going to comment on Rashi but as I went to my book case and climbed to the top to bring down my Rashi Torah from the very top shelf, 2 of my Bibles fell to the floor with a bunch of other stuff and after putting everything back on the shelves, I got to tired to read and get into the mind frame of understanding Rashi's logic. Anyway, Rashi guesses a lot.
  
• 

  TD

  Fisherman

  The above statement does not truly represent wt teachings because wt position on blood transfusion is based upon the application of BIble laws on blood and not based upon what they believe is the significance of the laws on blood.

  I fear we've reached an impasse, my friend. I've corresponded twice (Once by voice, once by letter) with the JW parent organization on this subject and what I'm reading above is very much at odds with what I was told.

  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  I fear we've reached an impasse, my friend. I've corresponded twice (Once by voice, once by letter) with the JW parent organization on this subject and what I'm reading above is very much at odds with what I was told.

  TD, I do not know what you have asked the WT and I do not know what they have stated to you. Here is what they publish:

  "The Bible commands that we not ingest blood. So we should not accept whole blood or its primary components in any form, whether offered as food or as a transfusion........"

  
  

  "Why does God command us to abstain from blood?

  There are sound medical reasons to avoid blood transfusions. More important, though, God commands that we abstain from blood because what it represents is sacred to him ......."

  ( Above quotes are from WT publication posted on JW website: "What does the Bible say about Blood Transfusion."
  
• 

  TD

  Fisherman,

  I called shortly after the 2004 article came out because it seemed to be a departure from previous treatments on the subject. I was told very candidly that the teaching is an interpretation based on what the Bible has to say on blood. I asked if I was correct in understanding that JW's view it (transfusion) as an act of disrespect towards the Ransom and was told, yes.

  I can't comment on why the teaching is sometimes presented in simplistic terms. --Perhaps for the benefit of the general public?

  As a Jewish person, I certainly wouldn't argue that the ingestion of blood was forbidden. But ingestion is not transfusion and that gap is bridged via interpretation. Similarly, JW literature has acknowledged for years that the mention of blood in the Apostolic Decree was a direct reference to those earlier prohibitions against ingestion. I can provide quotes if there is any question on that point.
• 

  Ucantnome

  I was told very candidly that the teaching is an interpretation based on what the Bible has to say on blood

  lol
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  I called shortly after the 2004 article came out because it seemed to be a departure from previous treatments on the subject. I was told very candidly that the teaching is an interpretation based on what the Bible has to say on blood. I asked if I was correct in understanding that JW's view it (transfusion) as an act of disrespect towards the Ransom and was told, yes. TD

  *** w04 6/15 pp. 20-21 pars. 7-8 Be Guided by the Living God ***
  Note the contrast: Disregarding God’s guidance concerning the sacredness of lifeblood can result in everlasting death. Showing respect for Jesus’ sacrifice can lead to everlasting life.
  How did the early Christians understand and act on God’s guidance about blood? Recall Clarke’s comment: “Under the Gospel it should not be eaten, because it should ever be considered as representing the blood which has been shed for the remission of sins.”
  
  It seems to me that the above quoted paragraph is leading the reader to conclude that blood should not be eaten (BT) because it represents Christ's shed blood. That is qualified by "Guided by the Living God"
  
• 

  Fisherman

  It seems to me that the above quoted paragraph is leading the reader to conclude that blood should not be eaten (BT) because it represents Christ's shed blood. That is qualified by "Guided by the Living God"

  By the way, as a side point, the basis for such conclusion is: Leviticus 17:10-12. The WT did not make up the teaching.