Posts by peacefulpete

203

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

by cofty in

10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.

12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.

15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.

peacefulpete

As JW interpret the Bible....The JW gb interprets that to mean no bt.

Your comments reveal a large part of the problem people have with the WT.
Your first statement suggests individual JWs have carefully considered the matter but your second nails it down by saying the GB have actually made that decision for them.

..that a phrase like "abstain from blood," shorn of context, has an almost limitless number of possible interpretations.

I know some have meant well arguing alternative takes of the passage in Acts but personally, I don't think trying to redefine "and from blood" as meaning something other than this taboo regarding blood of a slaughtered animal, is being faithful to the text. The question for those who wonder what early Christians believed about this topic are encouraged to read the surrounding context in Acts and the unambiguous passages in Paul that elicited this story in Acts. Paul was preaching Chrisian freedom from all the religious taboos of the Jews and some new Jewish Christain converts around Jerusalem were taking offense. The suggestion to not abuse their liberty so as not to stumble these weak ones is a pretty typical message of the period. The church leaders at the time of the writing of Acts were revising history a bit to present the image of a united church. But regardless the motives of the work, the context clearly describes a situation very different from how the WT spins it.

203

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

by cofty in

10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.

12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.

15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.

peacefulpete

The voluntary donation of blood of an unharmed person for the medical benefit of another is not prohibited in any text. Drawing parallels of the blood of slaughtered animals to blood transfusions is not a rational conclusion. The lack of concern about eating the blood in unbled animals illustrates the Levites did not have a pathological hemophobia. Theirs was a religious taboo with a specific context. If any parallel exists of our days with the pre-scientific context of the writings, it may be that, in the eyes of people of both ages, blood saves lives.

14

God Talks to Himself in the Trinity Bible

by BoogerMan in

psalm 110:1 (niv) “the lord says to my lord: “sit at my right hand until i make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”” .

psalm 110:1 (trv) “the lord god almighty says to a third of himself: “sit at my/our right hands until i make our/your enemies a footstool for our/your feet.”” (but don't tell the other third) .

peacefulpete

Religions need some counterintuitive elements to elevate the system to a spiritual religion. If it completely made sense it becomes mundane. That is one reason the JW church fails to invoke strong feelings of the numinous. Its power to influence is centered only in repetition and group dynamics. That works ok but rarely does it evoke a sense of the 'divine' or deep inspiration.

The Trinity doctrine certainly appears to be an overlay upon the Bible, but at the same time it better explains a great number of passages than Arianism. It is for a reason it is regarded as the Mystery of the Trinity. It isn't supposed to be obvious nor easily grasped. In the world of religion that doesn't mean it isn't 'true'. The earliest Christians believed it was their place to decode the sayings they inherited, to be inspired by them, not to literalize them, to neuter them to becoming merely texts. This why Christianity bloomed into a rich diverse cultural movement. It took centuries for this to become muted through hierchal authoritarian leadership which sought conformity and dogma.

Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity in its final polished form was voted into canon many years after the writings that inspired it, but it is at the same time a product of the writings. Groups like the WT were born in a modern Western context and fail to understand the more ancient mysterious nature of early Christianity.

203

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

by cofty in

10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.

12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.

15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.

peacefulpete

I can't help myself from reminding anyone interested in this topic that these "laws" were created around the time of the Babylonian Exile (possibly some tradition dates from the Assyrian exile of Israel) and continued to be revised until the 3rd century BCE. The retrojection of these "Mosaic" laws into the deep past is an artifice of the Levite elite who composed this material. It is true that some elements of Leviticus and Deuteronomy preserve more ancient sentiment, but apart from a few poems little can be said with certainty to be pre-Exilic.

169

Are the statistics out yet?

by slimboyfat in

isn’t it about time they released the report for the service year?

or have they stopped publishing it?

did they released selected figures at the annual meeting as they usually do, such as the memorial attendance or record number of pioneers?

peacefulpete

I feel that those who misled me back then, including many org leaders, were sincere. However, the org is today deceptive and cold and self-serving.

Magnum...I see many posters mirror those sentiments. Problem is those sentiments are from people who left decades apart. The change of opinion about the church are the result of a person's perception and their experience, not really to the changes in the church. The church 'worked' for you when you were younger, but it no longer does. That may be because of your widening of your heart or your mind. Simply said, the church never really was the place we imagined when we were new converts or young people raised into it.

203

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

by cofty in

10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.

12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.

15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.

peacefulpete

Blood was ceremonially equated with life in living things. Life was sacred, blood was sacred only through connection with life. Blood in a found dead animal no longer had this ceremonial significance. Therefore, the prohibition on eating a carcass wasn't blood related at all. It was the death apart from approved purposes, slaughter for food or sacrifice, that made it ceremonially unclean. Much like the uncleanness of fallen soldiers was not because of the blood in their bodies.

Since the animal found dead was not slaughtered for food or sacrifice, it being not bled was not relevant. It is however relevant to a modern believer trying to determine whether passages prohibiting the eating of blood of slaughtered animals applies to blood transfusions.

203

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

by cofty in

10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.

12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.

15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.

peacefulpete

Perhaps of interest is how the Koran addresses this: Surah16,115

He has forbidden to you only carrion, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that over which any name other than God's has been invoked; but if one is driven [to it] by necessity - neither coveting it nor exceeding his immediate need - verily, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

Many conservative Muslims do interpret the prohibition of eating blood as relevant to transfusions. However, they also understand necessity for the preservation of life to be of greater importance. Shamefully, blood donations Muslims provide are to be given for other Muslims only and not sold to a commercial company.

203

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

by cofty in

10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.

12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.

15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.

peacefulpete

Vander....The Deuteronomists were repeating/revising the Levitical code. Thats why it's called Deuteronomy "2nd law'. They made many alterations. The point Coffy was making is the Leviticus passage makes no distinction between merely touching and eating a carcass, the ritual uncleanness was due the contact with death. The Deuteronomists prohibited Jews alone from eating it, without mentioning a ritual remedy. Perhaps ironically the Leviticus code does not differentiate the foreigner from the Jew in regards eating found dead animals but the Deuteronomists did by allowing the sale of found dead animals for food to nonIsraelites living among them.

Leviticus 11:40
Whoever eats from the carcass must wash his clothes and will be unclean until evening, and anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes and will be unclean until evening.

Leviticus 17:15
And any person, whether native or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or mauled by wild beasts must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean until evening; then he will be clean.

**Contrast the Deuteronomist who was much more concerned about Jews only:

Deuteronomy 14:21
You are not to eat any carcass; you may give it to the foreigner residing within your gates, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a holy people belonging to the LORD your God.

Leviticus 7:24

The fat of an animal found dead or mauled by wild beasts may be used for any other purpose, but you must not eat it.

(No mention of avoiding the carcass because of uncleaness)

24

The Kingdom of God - when in Heaven ? -- according to Jesus

by wantingtruth in

john said "...the truth came through jesus christ" ?

--------the kingdom of god---------- .

"the kingdom of god is near.

peacefulpete

The writers of most of the NT imagined Jesus was coming to liberate Israel and kill their enemies and so had him say things like, "soon" and "you will see" "this generation" etcetera. To believe the Kingdom was going to be any moment is the very theme of the Gospels, Revelation and most of the epistles.

It was their disappointment that necessitated a revision. The Kingdom was spiritual, the Kingdom was only in heaven, the kingdom was the church. Or in the case of Adventists, the kingdom is very slow. Pick one.

14

God Talks to Himself in the Trinity Bible

by BoogerMan in

psalm 110:1 (niv) “the lord says to my lord: “sit at my right hand until i make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”” .

psalm 110:1 (trv) “the lord god almighty says to a third of himself: “sit at my/our right hands until i make our/your enemies a footstool for our/your feet.”” (but don't tell the other third) .

peacefulpete

Ps 110:1-4.

Many years ago, a thread I started.