Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[Juan Rivera]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Right. I was just trying to show how this is also how Paul may have understood the Acts 15 decree, if he was able to rescind the part about 'food polluted by idols.'

Ok. I posted this on the other thread yesterday. What do you think about the reasoning?

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90798-what-is-our-scriptural-basis-for-refusing-transfusion-of-products-rendered-from-blood/?do=findComment&comment=189274

 http://truetheology.net/forum-bkup/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

What do you think about the reasoning?

Yes. I saw it, and I agree with almost all of it. That's why I used the term pollution here. But it misses a very important point I think. Right now I'm babysitting an 8 month old wiggle-worm [grand-daughter] and am having trouble typing. But will respond in a couple hours or naptime whichever comes first.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But will respond in a couple hours or naptime whichever comes first.

Whose? Can you type in your sleep?

[JW Insider]

57 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Whose? Can you type in your sleep?

Thought I could. Typed a brilliant response, then woke up and the screen was blank. 

[Many Miles]

8 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

What do you think about the reasoning?

...

 http://truetheology.net/forum-bkup/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172

That link begins with the false premise "Scriptures consistently teach that blood is a sacred substance, and one that he has withheld for Himself." No argument with a false premise results in a sound conclusion.

No pre-Judaic Law text teaches that the substance of blood is sacred and withheld for God alone. For example, aside from eating blood of animals he killed to eat, Noah was free to do with blood whatever he wanted to do with it. Also, if Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat blood it sure is news to me. Insofar as I can see, the only thing God withheld from Adam and Eve was eating from the tree of knowledge.

[BTK59]

It's interesting to consider that if we follow that line of reasoning, God must have explicitly informed Adam and Eve about what was forbidden within the Garden, aside from the tree of knowledge. I guess, modern individuals could greatly benefit from having a comprehensive guide outlining the actions and behaviors that align with God's commands, or do they? It's quite amusing how God instructed the first couple to freely enjoy the edible fruits and vegetation. In my opinion, that instruction was actually quite explicit, as it made no mention of consuming meat, nor did God suggest it to them.

People often try to rationalize their irrational thoughts regarding the time of Noah and Moses. In Leviticus 17:14, it is stated that the life of the flesh resides in the blood, which would be considered precious to God. During those times, the Israelites had a specific ritual of purity that they had to follow for God's acceptance. The concept of defilement would have played a significant role in the minds of Noah, Moses, and Preist as emphasized in Deuteronomy 12:23.

All those facts were essential for a priest to comprehensively grasp their duties under God. True Christians should also embrace the same understanding, distinguishing themselves from those who forsake the true purpose and mistakenly consider themselves Christian. This principle is underscored in Ezekiel 3:18 and Hebrews 9:22.
What is the true significance of Matthew 5:21, regarding the act of causing bloodshed, whether by oneself or another?
True Christians do not want to defile the precious bloodshed made by Christ for us. Who among true Christians does not understand Deuteronomy 28? They should pay attention to it.

[Pudgy]

if you had a friend that you loved and respected very much, and they loved puppies, didn’t care much for cats, and had a deep aversion to reptiles as pets, but never told you “don’t you bring one of those things into my house“, the  general Principles should be enough for you to know how to react and deal with such a person.

What I see is a common theme that runs through the entire Bible, that Jehovah wants us to respect the symbolic value of blood and that even extends to the use of blood, by extension.

I remember in the book “Shogun” about a Japanese warlord that used to meditate at the bottom of a cliff on rocks watching the oceans crash on the rocks. His bodyguards would wait at the top of the cliff so as not to disturb his meditation. One day he apparently lost track of the fact that the tide was coming in, and he was in danger of being overwhelmed by the ocean and drowning.

Rather than yell down to him, which would be considered a sign of extreme disrespect, one of his bodyguards jumped off the cliff to his death, landing on the rock beside the warlord, which the warlord of course noticed, and scrambled to get up the cliff

This might seem extreme to us, but that attitude is quite normal for 14th and 15th century Japan. It made perfect sense to them.

Although Jehovah cannot be insulted, I am inclined to err on the side of caution as regards the issue of blood, because after all, we’re all going to die anyway, and there’s no exceptions.

As big ugly bags of mostly water, and having brains made mostly of fat, we have enough problems trying to live our lives without possibly insulting our best friend.

 

[Pudgy]

Sometimes I find it amazing that those who should have the very least fear of death, apparently have the greatest fear of death.

[Many Miles]

38 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

It's interesting to consider that if we follow that line of reasoning, God must have explicitly informed Adam and Eve about what was forbidden within the Garden, aside from the tree of knowledge. I guess, modern individuals could greatly benefit from having a comprehensive guide outlining the actions and behaviors that align with God's commands, or do they? It's quite amusing how God instructed the first couple to freely enjoy the edible fruits and vegetation. In my opinion, that instruction was actually quite explicit, as it made no mention of consuming meat, nor did God suggest it to them.

I disagree that God didn't mention consumption of meat to humans. It may not be explicitly stated in recorded text, but it is stated by implication. By giving humans dominion of animals (Gen 1:26-39) God gave humans permission to use them as they needed or wanted, which would included eating them if they needed or wanted to. As it turns out, humans did use animals for their needs, including transplanting animal flesh onto their own flesh. In this context, what's the difference between putting animal flesh onto one's flesh versus putting flesh into one's flesh?

We also have the text of Genesis 6:21 where God instructed Noah to gather from every sort of food eaten and use it as food for himself and the animals. This is an explicit statement and animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten since animals were created.

 

[Pudgy]

Humans eat 9 billion broiler chickens a year, in the USA alone.

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

I disagree that God didn't mention consumption of meat to humans. It may not be explicitly stated in recorded text, but it is stated by implication. By giving humans dominion of animals (Gen 1:26-39) God gave humans permission to use them as they needed or wanted, which would included eating them if they needed or wanted to. As it turns out, humans did use animals for their needs, including transplanting animal flesh onto their own flesh. In this context, what's the difference between putting animal flesh onto one's flesh versus putting flesh into one's flesh?

I disagree with your understanding of the passage you cited. "Subduing" the creators of the land should not be seen as a justified course of action for exploitation. As you indicated, it is about having dominion over them as caretakers who have no intention of using them for consumption. As you can see, the passage you mentioned uses the same language of food for the animal kingdom.

Therefore, God's intention for the garden was to have humans and animals live a harmonious life. For that to occur, no evil intent would have been allowed to enter the garden and corrupt the desires of humans and animals, leading to wicked actions such as consuming flesh.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

We also have the text of Genesis 6:21 where God instructed Noah to gather from every sort of food eaten and use it as food for himself and the animals. This is an explicit statement and animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten since animals were created.

Does this passage discuss the inside or the outside of the garden? What is the reason for considering them as distinct subjects?

[BTK59]

As imperfect humans, the idea of 9 billion broiler chickens may seem plausible, but considering the perfection of the garden's inhabitants, it may not be appropriate to apply the same calculation.