New Light on Beards

[Srecko Sostar]

25 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

 

 

What does a person have to be, to want to be photographed with cardboard and papers. lol

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think the reasoning the WT would go with will be something like this: The Acts 15 decree said to abstain from food polluted by idols, and from the meat of strangled animals, too: 

 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.  Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols [εἰδωλοθύτων], from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

There is a very specific Greek word for "food polluted by idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων] Paul used that exact same specific Greek word in 1 Cor. 8.

Note first what Paul says about "food sacrificed to idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων]:

(1 Cor 8 ) Now about food sacrificed to idols [εἰδωλοθύτων]: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: [εἰδωλοθύτων]:We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

And Paul goes on to imply that you as a Christian could actually go ahead and eat this meat sacrificed to an idol right there inside the pagan idol temple itself. But that it's not a good idea because of the weak Christian with a weak conscience who might see you and can't understand why you might be eating food sacrificed to idols in any place.

Then in 1 Cor 10, Paul goes on to say that we don't even need to question whether food was strangled, or whether it was bled correctly, or whether it was sacrificed to an idol. The only thing to be concerned about are those people with weak consciences who are still around and who think we still need the Mosaic Law. (Or at least they were still around in Paul's day.) 

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”^[ If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” [εἰδωλοθύτων] then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

So a very specific thing that Acts 15 told Gentiles to abstain from was food sacrificed to idols. Yet Paul said go ahead and eat it without any qualms of conscience. Paul said to eat whatever an UNBELIEVER puts in front of you to eat; eat ANYTHING sold in the meat market. This could easily include bloody, strangled meat. ANYTHING!! An unbeliever didn't even necessarily follow the Noahide Laws, much less the Mosaic Laws. 

There were people in Corinth who thought they could argue that fornication and idolatry were OK. Some might consider celebrating the Lord's evening meal along with one of the big idol feasts that each city often held. Paul said that was idolatry, and Paul said to Flee from idolatry. Some were evidently "proud" that the congregation could put up with a notorious fornicator, but Paul gave arguments in 1 Corinthians about why fornication was always wrong. 

So if you follow Paul, you might find that bloody meat and food sacrificed to idols was now a matter of conscience, but you couldn't argue for idolatry and fornication.

The best explanation must therefore be that the holy spirit led those Christians who were still zealous for the Law of Moses to find a reason for some useful compromise. It would be necessary for Gentiles to follow this compromise for as long as Gentile Christians needed to associate with Jewish Christians who were still zealous for the Law.

Acts 21: Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.

But after 70 CE, no Jewish Christians could be zealous for the Law any more. If you thought you had to follow any part of the Law then you must follow the whole Law, and the whole Law required the temple. The book of Hebrews shows how the entire temple arrangement had become fulfilled for Jewish Christians. There were no more sacrifices and the city of Jerusalem was not a city that remains, so Jewish Christians (Hebrews) needed to now go OUTSIDE the camp, once and for all time:

(Hebrews 13) Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so.  We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.  Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.  For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

I get what you are saying but if the society said this then each would have to stand before Jehovah on their decision..and have done the homework……for me…well I will take the same stand as now…and again if they did that..it would come down to legal issues..not spiritual..and they would as they have to now stand before their God…

It would remind me of organ transplants….and the change they had on that…if I had lost my son because of that…..I’d be furious…now you can have a heart transplant and it’s celebrated…without blood….so your thought on it is not out of the possibilities.

Even now with organ transplants I’m on shakey ground….not for myself..as I’m at the end scale of life anyway..but if my son got ill and they offered him heart and lung transplant…I probably would feel relieved and want it….how does one know…I guess that scripture that says if you sin against your own conscience then it’s wrong….im too tired to find it.

[Pudgy]

 

 

[Anna]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

then each would have to stand before Jehovah on their decision..and have done the homework…

As it should be.

So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God. (Ro 14:12)

 

 

 

 

[Anna]

12 hours ago, Pudgy said:

That means they only have two years to find those abandoned Gold Mines, and the “mother lode”under their property in Ramapo, NY. for the planned Sterling Mine Road upgrades.

https://rcbizjournal.com/2022/09/29/watchtower-bible-world-headquarters-project-in-ramapo-moves-ahead/

 

 

I have heard (from a reliable source) that Ramapo has hit another hiccup. The brother who moved there so he could help has been reassigned to a project on Long Island, NY where a new assembly hall is being built. (JWI might know something about that).

[Pudgy]

Remember in “Paint Your Wagon” the secret gold mining by Rumsford (Lee Marvin) and “Partner” (Clint Eastwood) under “No Name City”?

… kinda like that!

[ComfortMyPeople]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think the reasoning the WT would go with will be something like this: The Acts 15 decree said to abstain from food polluted by idols, and from the meat of strangled animals, too: 

Then in 1 Cor 10, Paul goes on to say that we don't even need to question whether food was strangled, or whether it was bled correctly, or whether it was sacrificed to an idol. The only thing to be concerned about are those people with weak consciences who are still around and who think we still need the Mosaic Law. (Or at least they were still around in Paul's day.) 

for the city that is to come. Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

 

I would say that Paul, in the aforementioned texts, is alluding to eating meat previously offered to an idol in a pagan temple of worship. Meat that was sold in the temple itself, and the income from the operation financed said place.

Paul says that the Christian with a weak conscience thinks that he is contributing to false worship, but the strong one only thinks that he is paying for a service: receiving food. That is, he does not make a donation to promote something idolatrous.

In other words, I don't find that Paul even remotely addresses the issue of whether or not the meat was bled. That idea was not under consideration in the context we are talking about. I believe that if the Christian suspected that this was the case (that the meat contained blood), his conscience would prevent him from eating it. But that point is not discussed in those verses.

 

(1 Corinthians 10:25-28) 25 Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, 26 for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.” 27 If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat because of the one who told you and because of conscience. 
 

So the question was whether or not the meat was offered in a pagan sacrifice, not the blood it might contain.

I think so, but I may be wrong.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

So the question was whether or not the meat was offered in a pagan sacrifice, not the blood it might contain.

I agree that blood is not in the context at all. But this was also my point. If abstaining from unbled meat was so important for a Gentile to learn about when it came to matters of conscience, then why wouldn't Paul make the reminder? Especially here, when he uses the same exact term for "meat sacrificed to an idol" that the Jerusalem congregation used (Acts 15 and Acts 21).

Paul said, don't abstain from εἰδωλοθύτων [meat sacrificed to an idol].

James said, abstain from εἰδωλοθύτων [meat sacrificed to an idol].

Paul took the point to an extra degree by saying to eat anything an unbeliever might set before asking NO questions about it.

If it was so important to follow the Acts 15 decree for all time --even when not in the presence of  "Mosaic Christians" like James, Peter and John-- then there would have been at least two additional important questions to ask about it: 1) Was it correctly bled? 2) Was the animal strangled?

[Pudgy]

11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What does a person have to be, to want to be photographed with cardboard and papers. lol

ummmm … two dimensional?

 

[ComfortMyPeople]

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I agree that blood is not in the context at all. But this was also my point. If abstaining from unbled meat was so important for a Gentile to learn about when it came to matters of conscience, then why wouldn't Paul make the reminder? Especially here, when he uses the same exact term for "meat sacrificed to an idol" that the Jerusalem congregation used (Acts 15 and Acts 21).

Paul said, don't abstain from εἰδωλοθύτων [meat sacrificed to an idol].

James said, abstain from εἰδωλοθύτων [meat sacrificed to an idol].

Yes, I see your point, and I agree. It could, from our point of view, have been made clearer. Could it be because they are two different contexts?

Like when Paul says:

(Romans 3:28) 28 For we consider that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law. . .

And James mentions something apparently contradictory:

(James 2:24) . . .You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone.

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Yes, I see your point, and I agree. It could, from our point of view, have been made clearer. Could it be because they are two different contexts?

That seems likely that there are two different contexts. But the two contexts of faith and works are very understandable because they are so intrinsically tied and therefore relatable. If you had first heard only James' "motto" you would understand why Paul was transforming it to make a point, and if you had first heard only Paul's "motto" you would understand why James was transforming it to make a point. A relatable "synthesis" is possible.

But in terms of what we can and can't eat we have two extremes that are not relatable. The differences are so extreme that a Jamesian Christian would react much like @Thinking just reacted before. Something like: "Well, if Paul says we can eat meat sacrificed to an idol, then that's like Paul saying fornication is now OK." 

So, right or wrong, I'm just thinking that a different perspective --which has already been posited by several Bible commentators in the past -- is the most likely one that the WT would consider if the blood doctrine were to be given a complete adjustment. And, to be clear, that perspective is the one that says the directive against "blood" and "things strangled" was important for Jewish acceptance of Gentile believers during a specific time when Jewish-Mosaic norms were still extremely strong among MOST of the original Christians. Jewish Christians didn't trust Gentiles to be truly ready for Christianity. Here are some of those more obvious reasons:

• At the time, Gentile pagan rituals included direct forms of polytheistic idolatry.
  • And Gentile Christians had therefore come from cultures where multiple gods were accepted at once, so that a Gentile Christian might think it was OK to accept Jehovah as God and Jesus as Lord, but still think it was OK to continue the rituals for other so-called gods.
• Gentile idolatry and the religious temples themselves were often associated with immorality. Some pagan festivals highlighted drunkenness (Bacchus) and fornication (Emperor cults, etc) and other obscenities related to fertility, phalluses, etc.  
• Greek and Roman pagan feasts and rituals included eating bloody meat, drinking blood, and might even allow someone to bathe in the dripping blood of a freshly sacrificed bull (Mithraic). 
• Greek and Roman mystery cults did not announce their secret rituals which allowed Jews and Christians to become suspicious of even more grotesque practices.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

That seems likely that there are two different contexts. But the two contexts of faith and works are very understandable because they are so intrinsically tied and therefore relatable. If you had first heard only James' "motto" you would understand why Paul was transforming it to make a point, and if you had first heard only Paul's "motto" you would understand why James was transforming it to make a point. A relatable "synthesis" is possible.

But in terms of what we can and can't eat we have two extremes that are not relatable. The differences are so extreme that a Jamesian Christian would react much like @Thinking just reacted before. Something like: "Well, if Paul says we can eat meat sacrificed to an idol, then that's like Paul saying fornication is now OK." 

So, right or wrong, I'm just thinking that a different perspective --which has already been posited by several Bible commentators in the past -- is the most likely one that the WT would consider if the blood doctrine were to be given a complete adjustment. And, to be clear, that perspective is the one that says the directive against "blood" and "things strangled" was important for Jewish acceptance of Gentile believers during a specific time when Jewish-Mosaic norms were still extremely strong among MOST of the original Christians. Jewish Christians didn't trust Gentiles to be truly ready for Christianity. Here are some of those more obvious reasons:

• At the time, Gentile pagan rituals included direct forms of polytheistic idolatry.
  • And Gentile Christians had therefore come from cultures where multiple gods were accepted at once, so that a Gentile Christian might think it was OK to accept Jehovah as God and Jesus as Lord, but still think it was OK to continue the rituals for other so-called gods.
• Gentile idolatry and the religious temples themselves were often associated with immorality. Some pagan festivals highlighted drunkenness (Bacchus) and fornication (Emperor cults, etc) and other obscenities related to fertility, phalluses, etc.  
• Greek and Roman pagan feasts and rituals included eating bloody meat, drinking blood, and might even allow someone to bathe in the dripping blood of a freshly sacrificed bull (Mithraic). 
• Greek and Roman mystery cults did not announce their secret rituals which allowed Jews and Christians to become suspicious of even more grotesque practices.

No..dont twist my words and meanings…yes I said that ….but my conclusions on transfusions come from the way Jehovah viewed blood all the way thru the scriptures…thus  I am not a Jamieson  Christian but a scriptural one….well I’m trying to be..

I also am not fanatical ..I for one know fractions are in certain medicines and as the brothers pointed out..if one wants to be fanatical then one would not be able to have blood tests as all blood should be poured out on the ground and not used for any purpose.

So this  isn’t about straining the gnat…I see it as showing respect for blood as the life is in the blood….and that belongs to him.

I tried many years ago to shoot holes in this….even a loop hole…sure would have made my life a lot easier. As time and science moves on..all I can say it has proven to be a highly dangerous substance and must be used with the greatest of care…speaking of that blood is not properly screened for the parasites of Lyme…which is really a pandemic in the states and across the world.

They are finding hundreds of different species of just one of the parasites …still I feel as comfort my  people says….my stand is based on the scriptures ALL of them… I don’t agree with the WAY we disfellowship people…Jesus set the bench mark for that when he forgave Peter….also Paul exclaimed to the Corinthian cong for being to hard on the Adulterer….and there was a danger of the man becoming over saddened……yes he gave counsel to remove him…but it is my understanding it was only a matter of months when he directed them to bring him back into the brotherhood…anyone can correct me on that.

As a people we tend to beat disfellowshipped one’s down …tho I do see that slightly changing….trouble is when the GB say something it seems like a number of stiffnecked elders stick to their own thoughts…..we have new elders and I have seen ones reinstated very quickly.

so my thought is everyone can do what they want…but be careful when you are responsible for a newly interested one….