How do jw's answer this? John 6:54 & blood issue

by carla 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Bobcat

  The Reasoning book under "Memorial" addresses John 6:54. It points out that the people (including the disciples) who heard Jesus say those words had no idea of a "Memorial" or Lord's Evening Meal. Thus, according to the WT, John 6:54 can't be applied to partaking of the emblems.

  That logic is, of course, faulty. For example, the "audience" listening to Jesus included the readers of the fourth gospel who had been 'remembering' the Lord's Evening Meal for many years and would have easily seen the correspondence between John 6:54 and the symbolism involved in partaking of the emblems.

  Another problem, if one accepts the WT's logic on why John 6:54 does not refer to partaking, then, that same logic would mean that Acts 15:29 can have no reference to blood transfusions since the original readers of the letter that contained Acts 15:29 had never heard of blood transfusions. I pointed this out to a brother some years ago and he acknowledged that 'the Society's reasoning has many holes in it.' Him and his wife have since pulled away from the WT (but not just for that).

  A post I made on this page has a commentary reference concerning John 6:54 and the memorial emblems.
• 

  scratchme1010

  Another one coming to "ask simple questions".
• 

  venus

  carla

  Great post.

  What is symbolic must also be true literally. You one can drink wine as though blood of somebody, it makes no difference if you literally drink blood of somebody. Jesus makes no difference between doings--literal or symbolic: "I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mathew 5:29)
• 

  TD

  Bobcat,

  The Reasoning book under "Memorial" addresses John 6:54. It points out that the people (including the disciples) who heard Jesus say those words had no idea of a "Memorial" or Lord's Evening Meal. Thus, according to the WT, John 6:54 can't be applied to partaking of the emblems.

  Yes.

  In order to avoid the implication that only the "anointed" attain everlasting life, JW's have taught since 1986, that John 6:54 was not a direct reference to the emblems of the "Lord's Evening Meal." (The Watchtower February 15, 1986 p. 31) and that both the "remnant" and the "great crowd" must figuratively partake of Jesus' flesh and blood. (The Watchtower June 15 1987 p. 19)

  JW literature however, still acknowledges the shared motif:

  "Blood is also involved in salvation today—Jesus’ shed blood. When “the passover, the festival of the Jews, was near” in 32 C.E., Jesus told a large audience: “He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day; for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (John 6:4, 54, 55) All his Jewish listeners would have in mind the impending Passover and that a lamb’s blood was used in Egypt." (The Watchtower February 15 1990 p. 12)

  Like I said, the problem is a subtle one (Perhaps too subtle for the average JW...) In JW theology, animal sacrifices no longer have any sin atoning value whatsoever because that symbolism was transferred by Jesus' own command to the sacraments of communion. (Emblems of Memorial.) Ergo, JW's have no basis for the claim that blood as a substance is still sacred.
• 

  EverApostate

  @venus
  Correct. Religions always escape by portraying something disgusting or silly as "Symbolic".

  Eating and Drinking human flesh and blood is barbarous, whether literal or Symbolic.
• 

  waton

  This week's bible reading treatment of John 6 makes only the point of not seeking the benefit of the kingdom, and the sacrifice that it is based on for selfish reasons.

  It totally ignores the Elephant the room, that not eating or drinking the symbolic emblems of the body and blood mentioned,-- disqualifies one from everlasting life, the resurrection. (if there is one)

  wt making it's workers straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel.
• 

  waton

  both the "remnant" and the "great crowd" must figuratively partake of Jesus' flesh and blood. (The Watchtower June 15 1987 p. 19) TD.

  Then, the "anointed" partake both figuratively and symbolically, by actually eating and drinking, whereas the OS only do so only "figuratively.

  still a big difference between the split personality two tier wt crowd.

  Hope some JWs will stumble upon, and be stumbled by these questions this week.
  
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  The JWs religion is a formulation of a oxymoron for it proclaims its righteous superiority over all other Christian based faiths calling them false religion yet many of its own doctrines are inaccurate and twisted.
  

  This what happens when novice bible scholars take on the assumption that god has chosen them exclusively and they happen to run a publishing house.
  
• 

  Badfish

  "Jesus said to them, 'Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.'" (John 6:53-58)

  Yet the JWs make a ritualistic ceremony of publicly rejecting Jesus.