Ditto
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " 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.
-
-
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " 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 Fact that Rabbis have for centuries attempted to unpack and unravel the Tanakh makes the point that these writings are incomplete, vague, arbitrary and contradictory.
One example I posted was that one text says you can sell dead animal for food, another says no. One text says unclean to touch a dead animal another says go ahead and use the fat.
Nothing makes any sense to us, who can only try to surmise the process, the motives and the purpose of these works, and who are separated from the cultural peculiarities of the times of the Levite writers.
Why were disease spreading locusts ok to eat (nuisance?) but not grasshoppers, delicious crabs or rabbits? Why giraffes ok to eat but not camels? (OCD?) Why ok to sleep with daughter but not granddaughter? (omission?) Why destroy a ceramic pot if it touches something ceremonially unclean but leather and wood are ok to keep? (pots are cheaper to make?) Why was it forbidden to eat fruit from a transplanted tree for 3 years then have to travel to Jerusalem to eat the fruit of the 4th year? (Sacred associations of trees with goddess and sun?) Why pork prohibition? (Philistines introduced them, Attis story?) Why is eating a swan or heron egg forbidden but not a goose egg? (???)
These are the works that have had Rabbis wrangling for centuries. Now JWs are arguing about semantics and definitions to decode what medical treatment they can give their dying child.
When does this lunacy end?
-
58
Did the ransom sacrifice even work?
by Sharpie inshower thought entered my mind the other day... jesus christ.
as per doctrine.
is still alive in heaven right now correct?
-
-
peacefulpete
There is absolutely no concept of a soul in terms of a conscious part of the person that survived death prior to the Babylonian exile
Cofty, I believe you are in a bit of a shady gray area there.
However, most cultures especially prior to the 20th century believed (as the bible teaches) that man also has an immaterial consciousness (soul).
Sea Breeze, Maybe the explanation for that lays with human psychology more than divine revelation. It's not difficult to understand really. We to speak to ourselves with an inner voice without moving our lips. Voila inner soul.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " 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
It seems my historical critical approach to this topic has not stirred much response. I know not everyone reasons in the same way however, i's my experience debates about definitions and subtleties have the unfortunate effect of elevating an otherwise morally untenable position. The forest is missed for the trees, as it were.
I certainly see the expanded redefinition of the WT and others as a semantic argument not arrived at through straightforward reading the text in context. But more fundamentally, I see it as a strictly sectarian and hence arbitrary matter. Semantic arguments are a favorite of moralists who measure piety by strictness and asceticism. Debating them is only interpreted as a sign of moral weakness. Yet even the most conservative of Muslims and Jews regard the subject as of secondary importance to saving a life based upon their reading of the Torah. It appears the Gospel writers saw Jesus as feeling similarly.
For a modern student of religious studies, the text represents a Proto-Orthodox polemical attempt to revise the story of Xtian beginnings. The purpose of this pericope was twofold, a roundabout refutation of Paulinist positions on sexuality and ceremonial uncleanness and the retrojection of unity between the historically divided branches of Xtianity. Some might add a third purpose, that of supporting a central hierchal church structure. I am not presently convinced this is evidenced by the story details, but it certainly has influenced the translating.
-
43
Sunday January 15 is my 76th birthday. I answer some of your questions.
by Terry inhappy birthday 2 me!!.
sunday is my 76th birthday and i know that you want to know how it "feels" to have outlived my usefulness, to have lost my natural beauty (being reduced to wrinkles and flab), and constantly walking into a room not knowing why i'm there.
you also are curious as to how i can continue to find a reason to live since none of my kids think my opinions have any possible value, most of my facebooks friends i wouldn't recognize if i tripped over them on my way into starbucks, and my monthly expenditure on bird treats exceeds u.s. spending on the military.
-
-
peacefulpete
Happy Birthday.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " 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 ina 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 in10 " 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 ina 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.
-
169
Are the statistics out yet?
by slimboyfat inisn’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.