The Trinity, from the JW view.

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi Mee,

In acts, Paul meets on the sabbath. from the NASB Acts:13:14
But going from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and set down.​



Joe
yes,
Since there was a Jewish synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, the missionaries went there first in order to give those most familiar with God’s Word an opportunity to accept the good news.


At this point, Paul boldly announced: "From the offspring of this man [David] according to his promise God has brought to Israel a savior, Jesus."—Acts 13:17-23.

On being invited to speak, he gave a masterful talk to all those present.
 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi Mee,



Acts:17:2
And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,​



Joe
Where to Begin. The historian Luke reports that when the apostle Paul was in Thessalonica, he used the Scriptures, "explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead." (Acts 17:2, 3) It is noteworthy that Paul did this in a Jewish synagogue. Those to whom he was speaking recognized the Hebrew Scriptures as an authority. It was appropriate to start with something that they accepted.

and also in Acts 9;20 those hearing gave way to astonishment because as we all know , he used to be a person in great opposition to the christians .


and immediately in the synagogues he began to preach Jesus, that this One is the Son of God. But all those hearing him gave way to astonishment and would say: "Is this not the man that ravaged those in Jerusalem who call upon this name, and that had come here for this very purpose, that he might lead them bound to the chief priests?" But Saul kept on acquiring power all the more and was confounding the Jews that dwelt in Damascus as he proved logically that this is the Christ.ACTS 9;20-22
 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Acts 15:
28:"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
29:that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

I agree there is no Sabbath requirement for Gentiles.

Joe
For all christians the sabbath is nolonger a requirement . christ is the end of it ,


Christians are not under the law covenant, because Christ fulfilled that law when he died upon the torture stake. "For Christ is the end of the Law." (Rom. 10:4)


The fact that Jesus kept the sabbath does not mean he set the example for Christians to keep it. It was necessary for him to observe it because he was born under the law covenant, and until he fulfilled it by his sacrificial death he was obliged to keep all the Law.

If Christians should keep the sabbath because he did, then they must also keep the entire Law as he did, and we know from the Scriptures that this is not required of Christians.
 
Messages
2,924
Reaction score
10
Points
0
For all christians the sabbath is nolonger a requirement . christ is the end of it ,


Christians are not under the law covenant, because Christ fulfilled that law when he died upon the torture stake. "For Christ is the end of the Law." (Rom. 10:4)

Then what's with the blood thing? Isn't that part of the "law covenant"? And, the Sabbath being a commandment, are all the commandments then done away with at Christ's death?

Chris
 

Still thinking

Well-Known Member
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northern Plains
Then what's with the blood thing? Isn't that part of the "law covenant"? And, the Sabbath being a commandment, are all the commandments then done away with at Christ's death?

Chris

I'm assuming you mean the Ten Commandments and other OT laws, and yes, because of Christ's sacrifice we are no longer under the Law. Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love God and love each other; that's really all those laws add up to anyways, just in further detail. If we love God and love each other, the rest is just gravy. :)
 
Messages
2,924
Reaction score
10
Points
0
I'm assuming you mean the Ten Commandments and other OT laws, and yes, because of Christ's sacrifice we are no longer under the Law. Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love God and love each other; that's really all those laws add up to anyways, just in further detail. If we love God and love each other, the rest is just gravy. :)

I'd just like to know what the justification, from the JW point of view, is for picking this one part of the mosaic law out. The prohibition is against consuming the blood of animals. Somehow they've morphed that into not accepting blood transfusions, but eating a rare steak is OK by them. And then mee tells us that the law is done away with. WTF? I mean, talking about making it up as you go along!

Chris
 

Still thinking

Well-Known Member
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northern Plains
Yeah, I agree with you there. I don't understand anyone who claims to be a Christian yet still places themselves under Old Testament law. But then again, the JW's don't believe Jesus was God, so maybe in their minds He didn't really fulfill the OT Law of the Prophets?
 
Messages
2,924
Reaction score
10
Points
0
I think I mentioned before that I'm a former Seventh-day Adventist. They're big on the Sabbath, obviously, and still adhere to the dietary prohibitions. I don't understand this. It's pretty clear to me from my reading of the NT that these things no longer apply, and yet... Maybe it's an identity thing. Maybe it's more about creating a unique identity as a mechanism for fostering cohesion within the group. I've never really understood the "neo-Israelite" dogma. If you wanna be a Jew, why not just be a Jew?

Chris
 

Still thinking

Well-Known Member
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northern Plains
Maybe they think it looks cool. LOL Could it be a sense of history that permeates cultures like the Jews, yet is more lacking in Christianity, which is relatively new compared to other religions? Maybe it is about creating an identity, like you said, somehow connecting themselves to the past. And that's fine, but don't try to justify it with the Bible; Paul said nothing is unclean, it's only in our minds that we make it that way.
 

Quahom1

What was the question?
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
6
Points
36
Location
Maryland
For all christians the sabbath is nolonger a requirement . christ is the end of it ,


Christians are not under the law covenant, because Christ fulfilled that law when he died upon the torture stake. "For Christ is the end of the Law." (Rom. 10:4)


The fact that Jesus kept the sabbath does not mean he set the example for Christians to keep it. It was necessary for him to observe it because he was born under the law covenant, and until he fulfilled it by his sacrificial death he was obliged to keep all the Law.

If Christians should keep the sabbath because he did, then they must also keep the entire Law as he did, and we know from the Scriptures that this is not required of Christians.
Then that is in direct violation to what Jesus declared, Mee. (Mat 5:17 KJV) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.(Mat 22:36 KJV)

So, it appears Romans has been taken out of context (again), and I am certain that Jesus' own words take precedence over any other's words, if their appears to be a conflict (which of course their isn't). In short, if Jesus come to fulfill the law and we are to obey Jesus, then we are to adhered to the law He fulfills.

v/r

Q
 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Then that is in direct violation to what Jesus declared, Mee. (Mat 5:17 KJV) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.(Mat 22:36 KJV)

So, it appears Romans has been taken out of context (again), and I am certain that Jesus' own words take precedence over any other's words, if their appears to be a conflict (which of course their isn't). In short, if Jesus come to fulfill the law and we are to obey Jesus, then we are to adhered to the law He fulfills.

v/r

Q






CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW

Jesus Christ, of course, was that promised Savior, even as the angel proclaimed at his birth. (Luke 2:8-14)

So when Christ came and gave his perfect life as a sacrifice, what happened to the Law?

It was removed. "We are no longer under a tutor," Paul explained. (Galatians 3:25)

The removal of the Law was a relief to the Israelites. It had shown them up as sinners, for all of them fell short of keeping that Law perfectly. "Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law," Paul said. (Galatians 3:10-14)

So the Bible also says: "Christ is the end of the Law."—Romans 10:4; 6:14.







The Law actually served as a barrier or "wall" between the Israelites and other peoples who were not under it.


By the sacrifice of his life, however, Christ "abolished . . . the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, that he might create the two peoples [Israelite and non-Israelite] in union with himself into one new man." (Ephesians 2:11-18)

Concerning the action that Jehovah God himself took toward the law of Moses, we read: "He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees [including the Ten Commandments] and which was in opposition to us [because of condemning the Israelites as sinners]; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake." (Colossians 2:13, 14) So, with the perfect sacrifice of Christ, the Law was brought to an end.


Some persons, however, say that the Law is divided into two parts: The Ten Commandments, and the rest of the laws.
The rest of the laws, they say, are what ended, but the Ten Commandments remain.
Yet this is not true. In his Sermon on the Mount Jesus quoted from the Ten Commandments as well as other parts of the Law and made no distinction between them. Jesus thus showed that the law of Moses was not divided into two parts.—Matthew 5:21-42.
Notice, too, what the apostle Paul was inspired by God to write: "Now we have been discharged from the Law." Was it only the laws other than the Ten Commandments that the Jews were discharged from? No, for Paul goes on to say: "Really I would not have come to know sin if it had not been for the Law; and, for example, I would not have known covetousness if the Law had not said: ‘You must not covet.’" (Romans 7:6, 7; Exodus 20:17)
Since "You must not covet" is the last one of the Ten Commandments, it follows that the Israelites were discharged from the Ten Commandments also.


Does this mean that the law to keep a weekly Sabbath, which is the fourth of the Ten Commandments, was also removed? Yes, it does. What the Bible says at Galatians 4:8-11 and Colossians 2:16, 17 shows that Christians are not under God’s law given to the Israelites, with its requirement to keep the weekly Sabbath and to observe other special days in the year.
That keeping a weekly Sabbath is not a Christian requirement can also be seen from Romans 14:5.











 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'd just like to know what the justification, from the JW point of view, is for picking this one part of the mosaic law out. The prohibition is against consuming the blood of animals. Somehow they've morphed that into not accepting blood transfusions, but eating a rare steak is OK by them. And then mee tells us that the law is done away with. WTF? I mean, talking about making it up as you go along!

Chris



what about Christians?

The Mosaic law pointed to the coming and sacrificial death of the Messiah. Hence, after Jesus died, true worshipers were no longer obliged to keep the Mosaic law. (Romans 10:4; 6:14; Colossians 2:13, 14) Dietary restrictions of the Law, such as those against eating fat or the flesh of certain animals, were no longer binding.—Leviticus 7:25; 11:2-8.






So,does the divine prohibition against blood apply to Christians?






This matter came up for discussion in 49 C.E., during a conference of the apostles and older men of Jerusalem who served as a central body of elders for all Christians.


The conference was held in response to a question about circumcision.

This apostolic council decided that non-Jews who accepted Christianity did not have to get circumcised.

During the discussion Jesus’ half brother James brought to the council’s attention certain other essential things that he deemed important to include in their decision, namely, "to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:19-21)

He referred back to the writings of Moses, which reveal that even before the Law was given, God had disapproved of immoral sex relations, idolatry and the eating of blood, which would include eating the flesh of strangled animals containing blood.—Genesis 9:3, 4; 19:1-25; 34:31; 35:2-4.



The decision of the council was sent by letter to the Christian congregations. It is now included in the Bible as part of the inspired Scriptures that are beneficial "for teaching, . . . for setting things straight." (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) The decision was:


"The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper."—Acts 15:28, 29.
Yes, even though Christians were not under the Mosaic law, it was "necessary" that they abstain from blood.

Was that just the apostles’ personal opinion? Not at all. As they stated, that decision was made in accord with God’s holy spirit.


Concerning that Christian decree, Professor Walther Zimmerli, of the University of Göttingen, Germany, commented:
"The first Judeo-Christian congregation in the decision reported on in Acts 15 made a distinction between the Law given to Israel through Moses and the command given [through] Noah to all the world."—Zürcher Bibelkommentare.6
The command to ‘abstain from blood’ was not a mere dietary restriction but was a serious moral requirement, as is seen by the fact that it was as serious to Christians as ‘abstaining from idolatry or fornication.’




 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So, no red meat for you then, mee?

Chris
as long as the meat has been bled its ok , because Jehovah said we can eat meat as long as its bled.



but as we can see from the bible to eat meat that has not been bled is a no no .





when meat is cut in the course of preparation for cooking, or when it is sliced after it has been cooked, a reddish fluid may run out of it. Is such meat suitable for eating by a Christian?.



A Christian may eat meat only from animals that were drained of their blood at the time they were slaughtered.

The Bible commands: "Keep abstaining . . . from blood and from things strangled."—Acts 15:29.


Of course, even the meat from properly bled animals may appear to be very red or may have red fluid on the surface. This is because bleeding does not remove every trace of blood from the animal. But God’s law does not require that every single drop of blood be removed. It simply states that the animal should be bled.


Then, too, there is extravascular fluid in the meat. This fluid may mix with traces of blood and take on a red color. The extravascular fluid filling the spaces between the cells is known as interstitial fluid and resembles blood plasma. But it is not blood and therefore does not come under the prohibition respecting blood.

So,the presence of a reddish fluid does not in itself make meat unsuitable for food. As long as an animal has been properly bled, its meat may Scripturally be used for food.


There may be times, however, when a Christian has reason to believe that an animal may not have been bled properly. If there is no way for him to get the facts, he may choose not to eat the meat and thus avoid disturbing his conscience.

This is in harmony with the principle stated at Romans 14:23: "If he has doubts, he is already condemned if he eats."





 

Still thinking

Well-Known Member
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northern Plains
Oh-my-G!d! Why not just be vegetarian to avoid any confusion? Seriously, if there's one conclusion I have come to, it is that this is all much simpler than we make it. I truly think God does not care what the **** we eat, or how we eat it. He is much more concerned with people's hearts. We are the ones who put these limits on Him, and on ourselves, when it is really so much more beautiful and pure and SIMPLE than all that. However we choose to worship the Almighty is our business, He just wants us to recognize and love Him. The rest is gravy. (And if it's red, bloody gravy, He doesn't even care!)
 

bananabrain

awkward squadnik
Messages
2,749
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Location
London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah
we never got confused about this one. eating is eating is eating. a blood transfusion isn't "eating". and in any case, unless idolatry is involved, you can do *anything* to save a human life, because "you shall live by [the laws]", so the JW stance on transfusions is completely nonsensical to anyone who actually knows anything about how the Torah actually works. incidentally, if anyone's interested, you can also "bleed" the meat by roasting/broiling it over an open fire so the blood drips out as you cook it, which is what they do in kosher steakhouses and with liver. however, nobody's getting any black pudding.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
however, nobody's getting any black pudding.

b'shalom

bananabrain
yuck ....congealed blood dont fancy that .

must admit i didnt fancy that even before i knew about what the bible teaches about blood . just the thought of eating congealed blood put me off :)
 

Quahom1

What was the question?
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
6
Points
36
Location
Maryland
as long as the meat has been bled its ok , because Jehovah said we can eat meat as long as its bled.



but as we can see from the bible to eat meat that has not been bled is a no no .






when meat is cut in the course of preparation for cooking, or when it is sliced after it has been cooked, a reddish fluid may run out of it. Is such meat suitable for eating by a Christian?.




A Christian may eat meat only from animals that were drained of their blood at the time they were slaughtered.

The Bible commands: "Keep abstaining . . . from blood and from things strangled."—Acts 15:29.


Of course, even the meat from properly bled animals may appear to be very red or may have red fluid on the surface. This is because bleeding does not remove every trace of blood from the animal. But God’s law does not require that every single drop of blood be removed. It simply states that the animal should be bled.


Then, too, there is extravascular fluid in the meat. This fluid may mix with traces of blood and take on a red color. The extravascular fluid filling the spaces between the cells is known as interstitial fluid and resembles blood plasma. But it is not blood and therefore does not come under the prohibition respecting blood.

So,the presence of a reddish fluid does not in itself make meat unsuitable for food. As long as an animal has been properly bled, its meat may Scripturally be used for food.


There may be times, however, when a Christian has reason to believe that an animal may not have been bled properly. If there is no way for him to get the facts, he may choose not to eat the meat and thus avoid disturbing his conscience.

This is in harmony with the principle stated at Romans 14:23: "If he has doubts, he is already condemned if he eats."








To cut flesh from a living animal and eat it without bleeding it is what is wrong. That used to be a practice of barbarians, and there is of course that fact that such is the blood of a living creature, therefore is still living itself, hence carrying the spirit of the creature into the human...
 
Top