Would the Jehovah's Witnesses here ha...

Would the Jehovah's Witnesses here have disfellowshipped Paul? YES.

Posted in the Jehovah's Witness Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1 Sep 12, 2012
It certainly seems so. Ok so Paul says "Abstain..." in Acts 15:29, ok fine. You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell." So the Noahide agreement about blood was about eating animals with a still beating heart and was a nourishment issue and Leviticus was a sacrificial procedure, but Paul was reiterating it here for the circumcision reconciliation. Ok, fine.

Problem happens when the JWs here say "abstain" is absolute and not open for discussion. Paul obviously did not believe it to be so, for reasons we will see shortly. So my question is, if Paul had commanded elsewhere to not abstain from one of those items, would that not make him eligible for a Judicial Committee from the standpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses today? Well, here we go:

1 Corinthians 8: 4, 10

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.”

7 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. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

The key part, and is key for someone like a JW to not misread the rest of the passage is to pay attention to 9

9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak.

Its pretty plain there. Yes, the verses after 9 say to not violate the consciences of the weak but its easy for someone to miss the point and think he's saying not to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but rather he's affirming that RIGHT and saying that there does need to be consideration for other people's sensibilities. Paul would not have referred to it as "your rights" otherwise. One needs to be careful not to miss the point of these scriptures.

But there are more mentions of this issue.

1 Corinthians 10:25 25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for,“The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” 27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.

Its cut and dry what Paul meant by "abstain" and its not the JW interpretation of the word. They miss the context and miss the point.

The JW contention that its an absolute command does not fit in light of his mention of food sacrificed to idols and their interpretation effectively disfellowships Paul as an apostate.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#2 Sep 12, 2012
No, So be quiet.
UNchained

Kingsport, TN

#3 Sep 12, 2012
Duh-boy wrote:
No, So be quiet.
Why don't you enlighten us the way that the Watchtower taught you Mr. JW PR rep.
bystander no more

Elk Grove, CA

#4 Sep 12, 2012
Disfellowship our beloved brother Paul?

Never!

2 Peter 3:15
Fulla Schitt

Monticello, NY

#5 Sep 12, 2012
Are vibrators allowed?

“Real Truth Never Changes”

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#8 Sep 12, 2012
Fulla Schitt wrote:
Are vibrators allowed?
Sure, your mother is welcome!
Fulla Schitt

Monticello, NY

#9 Sep 12, 2012
TPMP wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, your mother is welcome!
Typical response from a person with a E.D.problem.

“Bustin' Myths”

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#10 Sep 12, 2012
WOW, someone must have hit a nerve with this thread. It was distracted and derailed almost immediately.
Jose Mierda

Middletown, NY

#11 Sep 13, 2012
Fulla Schitt wrote:
<quoted text>Typical response from a person with a E.D.problem.
For the benefit of of all, E.D. means Erection Dysfuction.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12 Sep 16, 2012
Did some digging and apparently the WT's only answer to this is that Paul didn't mean "meat sacrificed to idols" but he meant idol worship himself. Which contradicts the need to have the entire controversy which was subsequently cleared up in corinthians. Apparently you get a doggy back with the meat you used to do that worship or something so when Paul says "don't eat meat sacrificed to idols" he meant the meat YOU would be getting after sacrificing your idol, not in general. TOTALLY makes sense.

They are amazing at twisting words or adding additional things that were clearly not there to begin with.

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#13 Sep 16, 2012
Red Davis wrote:
Did some digging and apparently the WT's only answer to this is that Paul didn't mean "meat sacrificed to idols" but he meant idol worship himself. Which contradicts the need to have the entire controversy which was subsequently cleared up in corinthians. Apparently you get a doggy back with the meat you used to do that worship or something so when Paul says "don't eat meat sacrificed to idols" he meant the meat YOU would be getting after sacrificing your idol, not in general. TOTALLY makes sense.
They are amazing at twisting words or adding additional things that were clearly not there to begin with.
what WT was it?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14 Sep 17, 2012
Right here:

w78 10/15 pp.30-31 Questions From Readers

For one, the point isn't that Paul was overturning anything, it's that JWs think he needed to overturn anything in the first place.

The relevant part is here:

"What the decree in Acts 15:28, 29 forbade was a Christian’s being part of a formal, religious ceremony or his committing an act of idolatry. Those who sacrificed an animal to an idol got some of the meat to eat. "

Such a huge jump in logic. Elsewhere Paul is clear about fleeing from idolatry, yet here they're willing to say that Paul when said "food sacrificed to idols" he didn't mean the food sacrificed to idols he had mentioned in Corinthians but no he clearly meant the type of food sacrificed to idols that you were given some of after you engaged in idolatry. I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with a Bible that added brackets or something to suit their very loose interpretation of it.

If anyone is even going to bother trying to defend this, read Acts 15:20 where it specifically says "polluted" by idols. Using it in a passive sense, where someone else would have polluted it, as every serious commentator notes is the exact thing spoken of in Corinthians that would be sold in the markets. Not something done by a disciple.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15 Sep 17, 2012
This also shows another proof that they liberally use this scripture out of context, here is Barnes' notes on the matter:

Pollutions of idols - The word rendered "pollutions" means any kind of "defilement." But here it is evidently used to denote the flesh of those animals that were offered in sacrifice to idols. See Acts 15:29. That flesh, after being offered in sacrifice, was often exposed for sale in the markets, or was served up at feasts, 1 Corinthians 10:25-29. It became a very important question whether it was right for Christians to partake of it. The Jews would contend that it was, in fact, partaking of idolatry. The Gentile converts would allege that they did not eat it as a sacrifice to idols, or lend their countenance in any way to the idolatrous Worship where it had been offered. See this subject discussed at length in 1 Corinthians 8:4-13. As idolatry was forbidden to the Jews in every form, and as partaking even of the sacrifices of idols in their feasts might seem to countenance idolatry, the Jews would be utterly opposed to it; and for the sake of peace, James advised that the Christians at Antioch be recommended to abstain from this. To partake of that food might not be morally wrong 1 Corinthians 8:4, but it would give occasion for scandal and offence; and, therefore, as a matter of expediency, it was advised that they should abstain from it.

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#16 Sep 17, 2012
Red Davis wrote:
Right here:
w78 10/15 pp.30-31 Questions From Readers
For one, the point isn't that Paul was overturning anything, it's that JWs think he needed to overturn anything in the first place.
The relevant part is here:
"What the decree in Acts 15:28, 29 forbade was a Christian’s being part of a formal, religious ceremony or his committing an act of idolatry. Those who sacrificed an animal to an idol got some of the meat to eat. "
Such a huge jump in logic. Elsewhere Paul is clear about fleeing from idolatry, yet here they're willing to say that Paul when said "food sacrificed to idols" he didn't mean the food sacrificed to idols he had mentioned in Corinthians but no he clearly meant the type of food sacrificed to idols that you were given some of after you engaged in idolatry. I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with a Bible that added brackets or something to suit their very loose interpretation of it.
If anyone is even going to bother trying to defend this, read Acts 15:20 where it specifically says "polluted" by idols. Using it in a passive sense, where someone else would have polluted it, as every serious commentator notes is the exact thing spoken of in Corinthians that would be sold in the markets. Not something done by a disciple.
excellent observation, the WT likes to cover themselves from being found at fault not unlike some WT apologists on this forum. thanks for the article, very interesting and one to keep.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#17 Sep 17, 2012
Red Davis wrote:
It certainly seems so. Ok so Paul says "Abstain..." in Acts 15:29, ok fine. You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell." So the Noahide agreement about blood was about eating animals with a still beating heart and was a nourishment issue and Leviticus was a sacrificial procedure, but Paul was reiterating it here for the circumcision reconciliation. Ok, fine.
Problem happens when the JWs here say "abstain" is absolute and not open for discussion. Paul obviously did not believe it to be so, for reasons we will see shortly. So my question is, if Paul had commanded elsewhere to not abstain from one of those items, would that not make him eligible for a Judicial Committee from the standpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses today? Well, here we go:
1 Corinthians 8: 4, 10
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.”
7 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. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
The key part, and is key for someone like a JW to not misread the rest of the passage is to pay attention to 9
9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak.
Its pretty plain there. Yes, the verses after 9 say to not violate the consciences of the weak but its easy for someone to miss the point and think he's saying not to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but rather he's affirming that RIGHT and saying that there does need to be consideration for other people's sensibilities. Paul would not have referred to it as "your rights" otherwise. One needs to be careful not to miss the point of these scriptures.
But there are more mentions of this issue.
1 Corinthians 10:25 25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for,“The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” 27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.
Its cut and dry what Paul meant by "abstain" and its not the JW interpretation of the word. They miss the context and miss the point.
The JW contention that its an absolute command does not fit in light of his mention of food sacrificed to idols and their interpretation effectively disfellowships Paul as an apostate.
All very well about the food issue, about not eating meat sacrificed to idols. This doesn't address meat that has not been bled. Or eating blood outright.(ie blood sausage - black pudding). Or those who drink blood.

When it comes to the issue of human blood, in my opinion, it has opened up a thriving black market industry for trafficking human body parts. The victims can be anyone, but the saddest are the most vulnerable, orphans with no-one to protect them from human experimentation, abuse, killings and cannibalism. It all starts with the disrespect of blood as being the soul of the person.

"Simply be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the soul and you must not eat the soul with the flesh." ~Deuteronomy 12:23

Some think of changing blood as being along the same vein as changing the coat we wear.(smile... pun intended).
Jace

Ardsley, NY

#18 Sep 17, 2012
Fulla Schitt wrote:
Are vibrators allowed?
Iny old Hall we had a ton of single sister who could not find a mate some of the sister has approached the CO wife during her visit and express concern with no male companionship or able to deal with natural sexual desires we are talking wen on their 30. 40 50
So in his sevice talk he worked in the matter of masterbation and devices

He did go off but explain such devices have no place in a christain life he referred to it as demostrating sexually greddinessa
Jace

Ardsley, NY

#19 Sep 17, 2012
Mythbusters wrote:
WOW, someone must have hit a nerve with this thread. It was distracted and derailed almost immediately.
My bad I too was involved in getting off subject on response to someone post

The topic dealt with blood back on point my bad
Jace

Ardsley, NY

#20 Sep 17, 2012
Jace wrote:
<quoted text>

He did go off but explain such devices have no place in a christain life he referred to it as demostrating sexually greddinessa
Correction

He did Not go off

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#21 Sep 17, 2012
>This doesn't address meat that has not been bled. Or eating blood outright.(ie blood sausage - black pudding). Or those who drink blood.

True. I am fine with people thinking blood should not be consumed, since its pretty plain but personally I don't think we're under the mosaic law anymore (virtually every mention of blood in the pentateuch is purely ceremonial). But if someone feels its not for them then that's their prerogative. But honestly, its such a minor issue, blood as food is usually a side item or novelty in most places that its not really a matter of contention.

>it has opened up a thriving black market industry for trafficking human body parts

Well, blood is only part of this. Organ transplantation saves lives but it has also opened up a very ugly black market as well.

But I see what you're saying. To me, if we can understand what was meant by "abstain" we can come to a better understanding of things as to whether transfusions or just touching it is equal to consumption, whether we can apply Jesus words about breaking the Sabbath to save a life to blood, etc. After that, I can agree to disagree if someone has a certain stance for themselves, but at least its based on a solid reading of the situation. But thinking "abstain" is absolute clouds the issue too much.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#22 Sep 18, 2012
Red Davis wrote:
>This doesn't address meat that has not been bled. Or eating blood outright.(ie blood sausage - black pudding). Or those who drink blood.
True. I am fine with people thinking blood should not be consumed, since its pretty plain but personally I don't think we're under the mosaic law anymore (virtually every mention of blood in the pentateuch is purely ceremonial). But if someone feels its not for them then that's their prerogative. But honestly, its such a minor issue, blood as food is usually a side item or novelty in most places that its not really a matter of contention.
>it has opened up a thriving black market industry for trafficking human body parts
Well, blood is only part of this. Organ transplantation saves lives but it has also opened up a very ugly black market as well.
But I see what you're saying. To me, if we can understand what was meant by "abstain" we can come to a better understanding of things as to whether transfusions or just touching it is equal to consumption, whether we can apply Jesus words about breaking the Sabbath to save a life to blood, etc. After that, I can agree to disagree if someone has a certain stance for themselves, but at least its based on a solid reading of the situation. But thinking "abstain" is absolute clouds the issue too much.
The way I see it is based on Deuteronomy 12:16
"Only the blood &#8203;YOU&#8203; must not eat. On the earth you should pour it out as water."

I reckon if it's poured out on the ground like water, then it wouldn't be for eating, collecting, drinking, putting into veins, mixing with bits of human body parts on computer chips, and so on.

I go with Jehovah knows what he's talking about, and what's best for us.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Purple fireproof clothing? Yes or No 13 min dollarsbill 12
A Trinity Discussion for Bobby 16 min dollarsbill 5,253
Did Jesus really lie!!! 22 min knowsnothing 57
It's SO easy to shut a Churchoid up: quote scri... 27 min knowsnothing 9
F&DS are doing the marking for those to survive? 30 min knowsnothing 279
My first Jehovah's Witness meeting. 35 min GreatSouthbay4040 185
TORTURE- a Godly Virtue? 39 min knowsnothing 21
Nub and El Cacique's corner 4 hr Alank 299
Jorge/Allan says NO to 15 second youtube to set... 15 hr Alank 45
My dilemma(leaving Jehovahs Witnesses) 16 hr Alank 435
More from around the web