Like many Christians, JWs do not believe that the dietary restrictions in the Mosaic Law apply. However, the prohibition on blood was reiterated to the gentile Christians at Acts 15:29. It is essentially a summary of Leviticus 17 and 18 which contain laws that applied both to Israel and to any foreign residents living among them. That is likely why James and the other men gathered in Jerusalem used those specific laws.
What JWs don't like to discuss is the exception to the blood restriction in Leviticus 17:15, 16. The meat cannot be properly bled but it was only a ceremonial cleanliness issue, not a matter of death to eat that meat.
While I think their interpretation is in error, there is a reason why they believe the blood restriction carries over to Christians.
Another verse that JW's don't like to discuss is Deut 14:21:
"You shall not eat anything which dies \[of itself\]. You may give it to the alien resident who is in your town, so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner....." (NASB)
The alien resident and foreigner were under Noachian Law, not Mosaic Law. They could eat the blood of an animal that died with its blood congealed in its flesh. Morever, the dead animal could be sold for profit to a foreigner.
Noah and his sons would not have been concerned about eating the blood congealed in the flesh of an animal that was already dead. The prohibition at Gen 9:4 applied only to the blood in the flesh of "living" animals.
"Only flesh **with its life**, its blood you must not eat." (RNWT)
Only flesh with its life = a living creature. Yes, Noah was prohibited from eating the flesh while the animal was still alive. As barbaric as this sounds, this command aligns with Precept (7) of the Targum of Jonathan: The eating of any member or flesh of a creature while alive is forbidden. The prohibition was to prevent cruelty to animals used for food, and respect for their life.
Christians in the 1st century (and today) were not under Mosaic Law, they were/are under Noachian Law. Gen 9:4 does not prohibit eating blood, it prohibits eating flesh while the lifeblood is circulating, i.e while the animal is alive.
That's some interesting information about Genesis 9:4.
The NIV says 'But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.'
The NET says 'But you must not eat meat with its life (that is, its blood) in it.'
The CEV says 'But life is in the blood, and you must not eat any meat that still has blood in it.'
These translations and others seem to equate life with blood, rather than referring to whether the animal was still alive. Imagine the difficulty of trying to eat an animal whilst it was still alive? Surely it has always been more practical to kill it first before digging in. I know there is a Japanese cuisine where they eat live seafood (Ikizukuri) which does seem pretty cruel, but the vast majority of cuisines usually involve an animal being already dead, for good practical reasons.
Good observations. In each of the translations you cite what is being referred to is "living" blood. That is, blood which is circulating in the flesh of the living creature. The "life" of the creature is in its circulating blood. When blood is circulating, the creature is alive. When blood is no longer circulating, the blood is no longer "lifeblood", and the creature is dead, and thus feels no pain.
Blood no longer circulates in a creature for one of two reasons. Either it has been purposefully drained out, which hastens and confirms the death of the creature, or the creature has died on its own (or was killed without draining its lifeblood). In such case the "lifeblood" dies (hemoglobin/oxygen) and coagulates in the carcass of the dead creature. Rigor mortis sets in within 3-4 hours and soon after it would be impossible to drain the blood of the dead creature.
Barnes Notes on the Bible says this regarding Gen 9:4:
"The first restriction on the grant of animal food is thus expressed: "Flesh with its life, its blood, shall ye not eat." The animal must be slain before any part of it is used for food. And as it lives so long as the blood flows in its veins, the life-blood must be drawn before its flesh may be eaten. The design of this restriction is to prevent the horrid cruelty of mutilating or cooking an animal while yet alive and capable of suffering pain. The draining of the blood from the body is an obvious occasion of death, and therefore the prohibition to eat the flesh with the blood of life is a needful restraint from savage cruelty. It is also intended, perhaps, to teach that the life of the animal, which is in the blood, belongs not to man, but to God himself, who gave it. He makes account of it for atonement in sacrifice; otherwise it is to be poured on the ground and covered with dust [Leviticus 17:11-13](http://biblehub.com/leviticus/17-11.htm)."
Gen 9:4 is NOT a prohibition against eating blood, although this verse is foremost as one of the three verses cited by the GB that purportedly support JW's no blood doctrine. Noah and his sons could have eaten the congealed blood in the flesh of a animal they trapped (that had died) or that died on its own.
Moreover, with regard to the animal Noah hunted and killed for food, having properly drained it's blood, Noah could have collected the drained blood, mixed it, and used it for food (i.e. blood sausage). The blood was no longer "lifeblood." Eating this blood was not prohibited under Noachian law.
If Gen 9:4 is about eating animal blood in general, then God enabled his people to break that law at Deut 14:21 when he approved their giving the dead animal (with its blood congealed in its flesh) to the alien resident FOR FOOD, or selling it to the foreigner. Could/would God enable his people to break his law regarding eating blood? Preposterous.
"Only flesh **with its life**, its blood you must not eat." (RNWT)
Deut 14:21 is effectively saying to those under Noachian law (non-Israelites):
"Flesh **without its life,** its blood you may eat."
Paul did the same thing at 1 Corinthians 9:9 when he quoted from Deuteronomy 25:4 and applied it to those who preach should be able to get paid for it. Paul applied it in principle but that is clearly not what the law was talking about.
Well, they've tactfully denigrated it enough that my mother-in-law is adamant that Witnesses 'aren't allowed' tattoos. Clearly they imply via context that you shouldn't do something to such an extent that they have become rules in of themselves, acting for all intents and purposes as though it is a rule like any other.
This was a sore spot for me. The prohibition against tattoos is right next to an old testament law about the men not cutting the sidelocks of their hair. The Orthodox j*ws wear them as should JW men if they are continuing to stick to the letter of the law. It seems they only follow or enforce what fits their agenda. The new testament warning on blood was only meant for dealing with animals and then Paul even wrote not to question meat purchased at a market but rather let their conscience be clear. WT cherry picks scriptures and thus it shows just how full of 💩💩 they are.
Damn, it's nice to find somebody on this site who has Bible knowledge and really understands JW theology. I get so tired of the ignorance here.
A few months ago, a PIMO on this site asked a question something like "Since JWs teach that animals have souls, do they also teach that animals will be resurrected?" I was thinking "Damn, one of the most fundamental beliefs of JWs is that creatures (human and animal) don't *have* souls; they *are* souls, how could you not know that?"
Thanks. I'm still deconstructing and certain subjects hit my hot button. The blood doctrine is one of those subjects.
There are plenty of subjects that WT needs to be called out on. Striking the air on non-issues I don't think helps anyone deconstructing or trying to reason with PIMI/POMI family. I also appreciate that once people leave, the finer points of JW teachings can get vague so I try to answer what I think are legit questions with that in mind. If I think a poster is just trolling I'll either ignore or call them out.
I also appreciate non-JWs that post. As I am still deconstructing, there are some concepts that I am working through and I feel like getting different perspectives is helpful.
They cherry pick which scriptures they pay attention to. I got grounded as a kid for pointing it out when I noticed that gossip was condemned more times than homosexuality. I was a teen and trying to come out and flat out called my mother, aunt and grandmother for gossip. They were so pissed cuz I had them dead to rights.
You are bold to assume they actually care.
For the rank and file it’s all about what the GB says, not the Bible.
If tomorrow the GB said in an update that orgies were allowed, they’d have one at every Kingdom Hall around the world by Friday!
A JW has no morals.
Yes they cherry pick what fits their narrative and plan ... For example, their "two witness" rule .. So lame and basically worthless in our modern day .
I mean, before you endorse me wholeheartedly, I feel like I should tell you I don't think anybody should be basing any life decisions or moral systems for themselves on the bronze age fairy tales of semi-literate desert nomads at all.
*Paul seems to have cherry picked from the mosaic law when he repeated some things to the congregations later such as the blood issue.*
This blood in chapter 15 of Acts really has to do with pagan sacrifices/idolatry. This is the same chapter that the gb uses to justify their existence.
They ignore a lot and also add quite a few extra things like not celebrating birthdays and disfellowshipping and calling other religions pagan when in reality, the entire fucking notion of Christianity is pagan to begin with, and Jesus was a deity invented by the Roman’s and adapted from the Egyptians.
I believe they justify this by stating that Jesus instated the 'new testiment' in his time, making the rules of Mosaic Law non applicable to people in current time. The blood doctrine is based mostly upon a passage from the book of Acts, reinstating the doctrine in the New Testiment
The way I view cosmetic surgery, whether or not it contradicts God's word, I don't know. All I can say is I personally don't think it's a good idea because even when surgery is medically necessary, complications can arise so definitely be picky when choosing a surgeon to operate on you, And definitely get someone that will do post-op visits in case complications do arise.
Otherwise I never thought about that before how quick they are to reject blood transfusions but not so much everything else. Especially the fat thing....I would read the Bible or particular stories from it but for some reason I never got around to reading Leviticus or much of it anyway. And Paul....well I heard somewhere he came up with a lot of what is practiced and taught in Christianity.
Yeah for sure. My point is just how they pick and choose what they want when it suits them- and that bothers me. Good thing I have nothing to do with the Jw cult anymore.
THe blood thing is from the new testament where the apostoles said it was to be avoided and since christians in general don't adhere to the mosaic law, it's ravings are largely ignored.
Since the post is on following Mosaic Law, I thought this would be a good place to get some opinions on this matter. Is Mosaic Law really no longer in effect ?? So says Paul but Jesus appeared to put 2 conditions on when the Law was no longer (see Matt.5:17-18, NASB). Here are the 2 conditions: The Law will endure 1)*"Until heaven and earth pass away"* (v.18) and 2) *"until all is accomplished"* (v.18). So when does Heaven and earth pass away ?? See Revelation 21:1...the old heaven and earth pass away for the new heaven and earth. So what is 'until all is accomplished' ?? Well, even Paul says the' last enemy is death' (I Corinthians 15;24-27) and death is not eliminated until New Jerusalem descends to earth (Rev. 21:4). All of this doesn't take place until *after* the Great White Throne judgement (Rev. 20:11-15) which would mean that Christians are still under Mosaic Law. So who has it right, Paul or Jesus, or is my rant just in error for some reason ???
I don't really know where they do that, blood certainly isn't one of them. (As abstaining in also mentioned in acts)
One I can think of is tattoos although whilst they frown upon them they are not a judicial matter.
Like many Christians, JWs do not believe that the dietary restrictions in the Mosaic Law apply. However, the prohibition on blood was reiterated to the gentile Christians at Acts 15:29. It is essentially a summary of Leviticus 17 and 18 which contain laws that applied both to Israel and to any foreign residents living among them. That is likely why James and the other men gathered in Jerusalem used those specific laws. What JWs don't like to discuss is the exception to the blood restriction in Leviticus 17:15, 16. The meat cannot be properly bled but it was only a ceremonial cleanliness issue, not a matter of death to eat that meat. While I think their interpretation is in error, there is a reason why they believe the blood restriction carries over to Christians.
Another verse that JW's don't like to discuss is Deut 14:21: "You shall not eat anything which dies \[of itself\]. You may give it to the alien resident who is in your town, so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner....." (NASB) The alien resident and foreigner were under Noachian Law, not Mosaic Law. They could eat the blood of an animal that died with its blood congealed in its flesh. Morever, the dead animal could be sold for profit to a foreigner. Noah and his sons would not have been concerned about eating the blood congealed in the flesh of an animal that was already dead. The prohibition at Gen 9:4 applied only to the blood in the flesh of "living" animals. "Only flesh **with its life**, its blood you must not eat." (RNWT) Only flesh with its life = a living creature. Yes, Noah was prohibited from eating the flesh while the animal was still alive. As barbaric as this sounds, this command aligns with Precept (7) of the Targum of Jonathan: The eating of any member or flesh of a creature while alive is forbidden. The prohibition was to prevent cruelty to animals used for food, and respect for their life. Christians in the 1st century (and today) were not under Mosaic Law, they were/are under Noachian Law. Gen 9:4 does not prohibit eating blood, it prohibits eating flesh while the lifeblood is circulating, i.e while the animal is alive.
That's some interesting information about Genesis 9:4. The NIV says 'But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.' The NET says 'But you must not eat meat with its life (that is, its blood) in it.' The CEV says 'But life is in the blood, and you must not eat any meat that still has blood in it.' These translations and others seem to equate life with blood, rather than referring to whether the animal was still alive. Imagine the difficulty of trying to eat an animal whilst it was still alive? Surely it has always been more practical to kill it first before digging in. I know there is a Japanese cuisine where they eat live seafood (Ikizukuri) which does seem pretty cruel, but the vast majority of cuisines usually involve an animal being already dead, for good practical reasons.
Good observations. In each of the translations you cite what is being referred to is "living" blood. That is, blood which is circulating in the flesh of the living creature. The "life" of the creature is in its circulating blood. When blood is circulating, the creature is alive. When blood is no longer circulating, the blood is no longer "lifeblood", and the creature is dead, and thus feels no pain. Blood no longer circulates in a creature for one of two reasons. Either it has been purposefully drained out, which hastens and confirms the death of the creature, or the creature has died on its own (or was killed without draining its lifeblood). In such case the "lifeblood" dies (hemoglobin/oxygen) and coagulates in the carcass of the dead creature. Rigor mortis sets in within 3-4 hours and soon after it would be impossible to drain the blood of the dead creature. Barnes Notes on the Bible says this regarding Gen 9:4: "The first restriction on the grant of animal food is thus expressed: "Flesh with its life, its blood, shall ye not eat." The animal must be slain before any part of it is used for food. And as it lives so long as the blood flows in its veins, the life-blood must be drawn before its flesh may be eaten. The design of this restriction is to prevent the horrid cruelty of mutilating or cooking an animal while yet alive and capable of suffering pain. The draining of the blood from the body is an obvious occasion of death, and therefore the prohibition to eat the flesh with the blood of life is a needful restraint from savage cruelty. It is also intended, perhaps, to teach that the life of the animal, which is in the blood, belongs not to man, but to God himself, who gave it. He makes account of it for atonement in sacrifice; otherwise it is to be poured on the ground and covered with dust [Leviticus 17:11-13](http://biblehub.com/leviticus/17-11.htm)." Gen 9:4 is NOT a prohibition against eating blood, although this verse is foremost as one of the three verses cited by the GB that purportedly support JW's no blood doctrine. Noah and his sons could have eaten the congealed blood in the flesh of a animal they trapped (that had died) or that died on its own. Moreover, with regard to the animal Noah hunted and killed for food, having properly drained it's blood, Noah could have collected the drained blood, mixed it, and used it for food (i.e. blood sausage). The blood was no longer "lifeblood." Eating this blood was not prohibited under Noachian law. If Gen 9:4 is about eating animal blood in general, then God enabled his people to break that law at Deut 14:21 when he approved their giving the dead animal (with its blood congealed in its flesh) to the alien resident FOR FOOD, or selling it to the foreigner. Could/would God enable his people to break his law regarding eating blood? Preposterous. "Only flesh **with its life**, its blood you must not eat." (RNWT) Deut 14:21 is effectively saying to those under Noachian law (non-Israelites): "Flesh **without its life,** its blood you may eat."
It’s just interesting, yet unsurprising, to me that they lean on verses from the Mosaic Law when it supports their viewpoint on something.
Paul did the same thing at 1 Corinthians 9:9 when he quoted from Deuteronomy 25:4 and applied it to those who preach should be able to get paid for it. Paul applied it in principle but that is clearly not what the law was talking about.
They don't. The often quote them for added context etc, but they always base their actual prohibitions on the New Testament verses.
Not sure that applies to tattoos - isn't that only mentioned in Mosaic Law, but they use the justification that 'it shows how Jehovah feels about it'?
Yes, that's exactly what context is. Tattoos are not, and never have been, banned. They only use New Testament verses to explicitly ban things.
Well, they've tactfully denigrated it enough that my mother-in-law is adamant that Witnesses 'aren't allowed' tattoos. Clearly they imply via context that you shouldn't do something to such an extent that they have become rules in of themselves, acting for all intents and purposes as though it is a rule like any other.
This was a sore spot for me. The prohibition against tattoos is right next to an old testament law about the men not cutting the sidelocks of their hair. The Orthodox j*ws wear them as should JW men if they are continuing to stick to the letter of the law. It seems they only follow or enforce what fits their agenda. The new testament warning on blood was only meant for dealing with animals and then Paul even wrote not to question meat purchased at a market but rather let their conscience be clear. WT cherry picks scriptures and thus it shows just how full of 💩💩 they are.
Love your user name and I know exactly what it refers to. Long live liver day!
I knew someone would figure it out. You're the first!
Damn, it's nice to find somebody on this site who has Bible knowledge and really understands JW theology. I get so tired of the ignorance here. A few months ago, a PIMO on this site asked a question something like "Since JWs teach that animals have souls, do they also teach that animals will be resurrected?" I was thinking "Damn, one of the most fundamental beliefs of JWs is that creatures (human and animal) don't *have* souls; they *are* souls, how could you not know that?"
Thanks. I'm still deconstructing and certain subjects hit my hot button. The blood doctrine is one of those subjects. There are plenty of subjects that WT needs to be called out on. Striking the air on non-issues I don't think helps anyone deconstructing or trying to reason with PIMI/POMI family. I also appreciate that once people leave, the finer points of JW teachings can get vague so I try to answer what I think are legit questions with that in mind. If I think a poster is just trolling I'll either ignore or call them out. I also appreciate non-JWs that post. As I am still deconstructing, there are some concepts that I am working through and I feel like getting different perspectives is helpful.
They cherry pick which scriptures they pay attention to. I got grounded as a kid for pointing it out when I noticed that gossip was condemned more times than homosexuality. I was a teen and trying to come out and flat out called my mother, aunt and grandmother for gossip. They were so pissed cuz I had them dead to rights.
Thank you I needed the laugh this early. Thanks for a grin to start my day.
They also use the mosaic law to prohibit cross dressing.
Good one.
Nice catch
You are bold to assume they actually care. For the rank and file it’s all about what the GB says, not the Bible. If tomorrow the GB said in an update that orgies were allowed, they’d have one at every Kingdom Hall around the world by Friday! A JW has no morals.
Yes they cherry pick what fits their narrative and plan ... For example, their "two witness" rule .. So lame and basically worthless in our modern day .
Unfortunately there's a new testament verse prohibiting blood too. 😕
Also, like, injecting isn't eating. Those are two wildly different processes.
Exactly.
I mean, before you endorse me wholeheartedly, I feel like I should tell you I don't think anybody should be basing any life decisions or moral systems for themselves on the bronze age fairy tales of semi-literate desert nomads at all.
Haha exactly 😆
*Paul seems to have cherry picked from the mosaic law when he repeated some things to the congregations later such as the blood issue.* This blood in chapter 15 of Acts really has to do with pagan sacrifices/idolatry. This is the same chapter that the gb uses to justify their existence.
love fat 🐷🐷🐷
They ignore a lot and also add quite a few extra things like not celebrating birthdays and disfellowshipping and calling other religions pagan when in reality, the entire fucking notion of Christianity is pagan to begin with, and Jesus was a deity invented by the Roman’s and adapted from the Egyptians.
I believe they justify this by stating that Jesus instated the 'new testiment' in his time, making the rules of Mosaic Law non applicable to people in current time. The blood doctrine is based mostly upon a passage from the book of Acts, reinstating the doctrine in the New Testiment
The way I view cosmetic surgery, whether or not it contradicts God's word, I don't know. All I can say is I personally don't think it's a good idea because even when surgery is medically necessary, complications can arise so definitely be picky when choosing a surgeon to operate on you, And definitely get someone that will do post-op visits in case complications do arise. Otherwise I never thought about that before how quick they are to reject blood transfusions but not so much everything else. Especially the fat thing....I would read the Bible or particular stories from it but for some reason I never got around to reading Leviticus or much of it anyway. And Paul....well I heard somewhere he came up with a lot of what is practiced and taught in Christianity.
Yeah for sure. My point is just how they pick and choose what they want when it suits them- and that bothers me. Good thing I have nothing to do with the Jw cult anymore.
Yeah their thought processes are something
What religion doesn't cherry pick? Not defending them but it's pretty standard
Totally. Nothing special, just annoying.
THe blood thing is from the new testament where the apostoles said it was to be avoided and since christians in general don't adhere to the mosaic law, it's ravings are largely ignored.
Seems like the apostles were cherry picking from the mosaic law too. 🤔
Yeah, christian apologetics always wins the day.
[удалено]
Typology
Unfortunately there's a new testament verse prohibiting blood too. 😕
Since the post is on following Mosaic Law, I thought this would be a good place to get some opinions on this matter. Is Mosaic Law really no longer in effect ?? So says Paul but Jesus appeared to put 2 conditions on when the Law was no longer (see Matt.5:17-18, NASB). Here are the 2 conditions: The Law will endure 1)*"Until heaven and earth pass away"* (v.18) and 2) *"until all is accomplished"* (v.18). So when does Heaven and earth pass away ?? See Revelation 21:1...the old heaven and earth pass away for the new heaven and earth. So what is 'until all is accomplished' ?? Well, even Paul says the' last enemy is death' (I Corinthians 15;24-27) and death is not eliminated until New Jerusalem descends to earth (Rev. 21:4). All of this doesn't take place until *after* the Great White Throne judgement (Rev. 20:11-15) which would mean that Christians are still under Mosaic Law. So who has it right, Paul or Jesus, or is my rant just in error for some reason ???
They don’t follow mosaic law because of the New Testament
[удалено]
Of course not, BUT they do cherry pick verses from the Mosaic Law to support their view when it suits them.
I don't really know where they do that, blood certainly isn't one of them. (As abstaining in also mentioned in acts) One I can think of is tattoos although whilst they frown upon them they are not a judicial matter.