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

Cofty...The pericope has been long interpreted by the Catholic Church as a proof text for a central authority. Churches like the WT repeat this claim. However, reading the text without this coloring reveals something very different.

The story starts with Paul and Barny going to Antioch church and there they encounter Pharisee Xtians from Jerusalem (15:24) contradicting the doctrine held by the Antioch church. The church leaders in Antioch send Paul and Barnabus to go to the church these guys were from (Jerusalem) and find out if they had in fact sent them with what was deemed heretical doctrine. They are greeted and a short airing of opinions ensues. Then the leaders of the Jerusalem church make clear they in fact had not sent the guys and they did not agree with them (again 15:24). Then James declares his opinion is that the Pharisee brothers needed to accept the changes but at the same time thought it best if the Antioch church would accommodate the Jewish Xtians on matters that they regarded as "essential/necessary" The Jerusalem church then sent 2 guys along with Paul and Bany back to Antich to ensure the relationship between churches was back on track.

The purpose this story was created was to create the impression that these powerful churches had in fact been unified at an early date (6:5 also) not to suggest Jerusalem was in control. However soon after that is how the catholic church used it to support the role of Rome and the apostolic succession doctrine. BTW, Paul effectively denies this ever took place in Gal 2 for instance.

The long Catholic tradition has influenced the interpretation of this story. It has also influenced the translating with words like "commanded" rather than 'Instructed' and James saying I "judge" rather than 'in my opinion'. (Unless we are conceding James was in charge of all Xtians)

As an aside, this pericope has many textural variants. A number of manuscripts changed the list of necessary things or preserved an older form. And what also cues me editing is involved is the simple change from a definite article before each item in the list in verse 20 to no articles in 29. A small thing but reflecting a different hand IMO.

7

Can a Church Lie Intentionally? Yes.

by peacefulpete in

a very recent case i mentioned briefly in another thread might be of interest to many here.

a mormon found through the internet that her church leadership had deliberately misled members regarding the origin of the book of mormon and engaged in historical revisioning.

she sued for damages for the lifelong tithing she had been deceived into giving.

peacefulpete

A podcast that breaks it down and interviews the Plaintiff/attorney.

www.exmormonfoundation.org/files/media/2013Conference/07-KayBurningham.mp3

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

Ok, one last last thought. The simplest way to understand the passage is in it's entirety. There were a few issues that loomed larger in the mind of the Jewish converts in Jerusalem than some other stuff. Those were sexual morality, not eating blood of slaughtered animals, eating unbled animals and meat that had been used as a gift to other gods.

The sexual morality item might seem surprising, but the ProtoOrthodox church that wrote Acts was probably responding to Paul's confusing argument that sin isn't counted if there is no law. It seems many Pauline Christians had adopted the view kinda like the JWs before the 1950's. Nobody really made issues of such matters. But whatever the impetus was, it was one of a list of items bothering the Jews.

Next, the issues of eating blood, an unbled animal or those offered to other gods. Paul again is the issue. He specifically argues eating formerly 'unclean' foods was not an issue for Christians. Even expressly said the eating of foods offered to other gods (idols) was not an issue nor ought anyone to judge others regarding such things.

Clearly,the writer of Acts was addressing issues that were dividing the Jewish faction and Gentile church and encouraging consideration for the sensitivities of the Jews.

"21For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

IOW, old traditions were hard to break free from and those still attending the synagogues (as many Jewish Christians did) were still getting Moses (the Pentateuch) read to them every week.

7

Can a Church Lie Intentionally? Yes.

by peacefulpete in

a very recent case i mentioned briefly in another thread might be of interest to many here.

a mormon found through the internet that her church leadership had deliberately misled members regarding the origin of the book of mormon and engaged in historical revisioning.

she sued for damages for the lifelong tithing she had been deceived into giving.

peacefulpete

A very recent case I mentioned briefly in another thread might be of interest to many here. A Mormon found through the internet that her church leadership had deliberately misled members regarding the origin of the book of Mormon and engaged in historical revisioning. She sued for damages for the lifelong tithing she had been deceived into giving. Her first attempt was summarily dismissed so she tried again with a different tack, it was also dismissed. Her argument was essentially the insincerity and deliberate deception of church leadership for the purpose of soliciting funds amounted to fraud. It's actually pretty interesting to read.

Gaddy v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 551 F. Supp. 3d 1206 | Casetext Search + Citator

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

A church is well protected and shielded from challenges to truthfulness or social value. A very recent case brought forth by new exMormon tried to bring a very well documented and argued case that church leadership were engaging in fraud through insincere misrepresentation of church history and the development of doctrine. She had straight-up confessions of withholding facts and burying inconvenient history but the court said it was out of their jurisdiction. Even the use of church funds that were collected under one pretense were spent on another were documented.

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

In the US, and most places, churches cannot be sued over internal matters of doctrine. Changes in doctrine do not change that. It's been tested many times.

19

Weight Loss and Insulin Control

by cofty in

ask most fitness coaches, nutritionists or health professionals and they will tell you that weight control is about calories in versus calories out (cico).

after all, you can’t ignore the laws of thermodynamics!.

the flaw in this simplistic reasoning ought to be obvious; a human body and a steam engine are two different things.. our bodies have evolved complex systems of control and feedback loops in order to maintain a steady interior environment, also known as homeostasis.

peacefulpete

We can't exchange one oversimplification for another. The newest science recognizing the role of insulin resistance is changing the picture but there are many other aspects to factor in. The role of genetics is huge. Familial high cholesterol and cancer risk increase from inflammation causing foods (omega 6) and HAs and PAHs from grilling must not be dismissed as myth. Kidney disease, colitis, food sensitivities, EPA limits to eating of fish from polluted water, etc.

Even eating what is generally held to be good food has risks, eating a lot of spinach (sorry Popeye) or squash or tree nuts for examples, has been associated with a slew of health issues. Most everything we could eat has some toxins or risk. That is how vegetable and animal life evolved, nothing is concerned about keeping us healthy. Bodies have needs and those needs outweigh the risks of unwanted compounds in the organisms we consume. We now through science have the ability to quantify those risks.

In short, moderate exercise, eat your vegies in moderation, eat less red meat, limit sugars and fast once in a while for 12hrs or more seems a middle road that is hard to find fault with.

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

One last thought. The prevailing Rabbinic approach to keeping the Law (described as 'building a wall around the Law'), that is, expanding definitions and legislating every possible scenario out of obsessive concern about rules is condemned by Christian theologians as oppressive. It's hard not to see this as an example of that.

When faced with a choice between following the Law or feeding hungry stomachs, the Jesus of the Gospels says: The (Law) was made for man, not man for the (Law).

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.